1951-02-13

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a bill (a) to constitute a department of defence production, to be presided over by a minister, with appropriate provision for the employment of officers, clerks and employees: (b) to provide that the minister shall take steps to mobilize, conserve, and co-ordinate all economic and industrial facilities in respect of defence supplies and defence projects, and in connection therewith, to buy or otherwise acquire defence supplies and to construct defence projects, and for these purposes to confer appropriate powers on the minister and to provide for the establishment of a defence production board revolving fund; and (c) to provide further that the governor in council may do and authorize such acts and things, and make from time to time such orders and regulations as he deems necessary to control and regulate the production, processing, distribution, acquisition, disposition, or use of materials, or the supply or use of services deemed essential for defence purposes.
He saidi: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. J. Browne (St. John's West):: Would the Minister of Resources and Development be good enough to tell us what progress has been made in connection with the establishment of a national park in Newfoundland?


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Resources and Development):: That is a matter which has received a good deal of consideration. It is still under consideration, but I am not able to report any definite progress at this time.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: What consideration is the Minister
of Resources and Development giving to the request of the Winnipeg branch of the Canadian Legion that some way be found to retain wartime houses in Winnipeg on a rental basis for veterans in dire need of low rental housing accommodation?


Robert Henry Winters: I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question, which I received just prior to coming into the chamber.
The Winnipeg branch of the Legion has been in contact with me and with Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation about the sales program of veterans housing. When the agreements were drawn up, they contemplated the sale of the houses. The agreements provided that there would be a $400 lot fee payable to the city in the event of sale within the first five years, and that thereafter the lot fee would be $200. In response to requests from many veterans, the government decided to sell these houses to veterans when the $200 arrangement came into effect. That program has been instituted and is going very well throughout the country. So far about 300 houses in Winnipeg have been put up for sale, and the remaining 1,300 will be made available for sale when the $200 lot fee arrangement applies.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does that mean that no consideration is being given to the Legion's request that this program be suspended?



INQUIRY AS TO REINFORCEMENTS FOR CANADIAN FORCES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Nanaimo):: Would the Minister of National Defence inform the house whether there are today in Korea the ten per cent first-line reinforcements for the Princess Patricias which it is customary to send with all field forces into a theatre of war?


Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minisier of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the rate of reinforcements provided to meet conditions in Korea- according to the best of my recollection because I had no notice of this question- is eighty-five officers and men per month. This seems to have been found adequate in the experience of the other forces fighting there. The men necessary to supply these reinforcements indefinitely, of course, are at Fort Lewis

Inquiries of the Ministry in the third battalion of the Princess Patricias and the other formations there. En route to Korea are enough to look after the first month's requirements after the Princess Patricias go into action. Whether or not they are actually in Korea with the unit or somewhere between Japan and Korea, I cannot say. It is a matter of hours, one way or the other.



RECROSSING OP 38TH PARALLEL BY UNITED NATIONS TROOPS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: Yesterday I directed a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In his absence, it was answered by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). It is found on page 253 of Hansard and reads as follows:
Were members of the United Nations consulted about the reported recrossing of the 38th parallel by United Nations troops? If so, did Canada express an opinion, and what was it?
The Prime Minister answered, and I asked a supplementary question to which I am most anxious to secure an answer. It reads:
Has Canada made any representations to the secretary general or to the United Nations concerning reconsideration of the implied permission which was granted to the troops last October?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secreiary of State for External Affairs):: The Prime Minister has directed my attention to these questions and has asked me to reply to them, which I am glad to do.
There is some doubt as to the exact details about the reported crossing of the 38th parallel by a South Korean detachment. Apparently it was a purely tactical movement and on a small scale, and does not indicate that any decision has been taken for a major crossing of the line, even if military conditions make that possible.
In reply to the second question, Mr. Speaker, Canada has not made any representations to the secretary general or to the United Nations concerning the question of the recrossing of the 38th parallel by United Nations forces. However, representatives of governments with forces participating in Korean operations have had informal discussions recently with the United States representatives in regard to this and other matters arising out of the Korean campaign. These discussions have included a Canadian representative. As a result of these discussions, I think I can state that the political significance of any new move across the parallel deep into North Korean territory is fully appreciated. At this moment I would not like to add anything to this observation beyond repeating my view that any decision taken in this matter should be a collective
[Mr. Claxton.l
one, including particularly those governments who are participating in United Nations-Korean operations, of which the most important is the United States of America.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Bona Arsenault (Bonaventure):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration; I am sorry that it was impossible for me to give him notice. When does the minister expect to table the text of the French government's decrees mentioned in his reply to my question on February 9?


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: The texts in English and in French will be tabled at the earliest possible moment.



TORONTO SUBWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinion):: May I
ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether the Toronto Transportation Commission can be reasonably assured of enough material to finish its badly needed rapid transit subway?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The Toronto Transportation Commission seems to be getting on very well without any help from the Minister of Trade and Commerce; at least it has asked for none. I know of nothing to prevent the commission from carrying on with the work.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. Ferguson (Simcoe North):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. How much longer is this country going to tolerate-


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: -termites like Dr. Endicott and his associates voicing their communistic opinions in the capital of Canada?



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, February 12, consideration of the motion of Mr. FEBRUARY 13, 1951
The Address-Mr. J. J. Smith
W. H. McMillan for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Drew, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Herridge.
Mr. J. J. Smith (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate I wish to congratulate the mover (Mr. McMillan) and the seconder (Mr. Breton) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I join with the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Laing) in his expression of the opinion they were good Liberal addresses. This afternoon it is my intention to make a good Liberal address. Everyone may not agree that it will be a good Liberal address. However, I can assure you it will not be a Social Credit address, nor will it be a C.C.F. address, nor a Tory address; therefore, it will be a Liberal address, good or bad.
I am going to deal first, Mr. Speaker, with controls. I should have liked to deal with the previous C.C.F. subamendment. In my opinion it was a Red subamendment, but since it has been discarded I suppose I am not at liberty to deal with it. However, this control subamendment which is now before the house is a better one. Of course, that is the way the C.C.F. generally operates. I know about the C.C.F. party because I was brought up among them- in Saskatchewan. They wave a flag, and if the people will follow it, fine and dandy; if not, then they drop that flag and pick up another one and wave it. In my opinion they have a flag this time which more people will follow. Already it appears as though they have support for this subamendment from the other two opposition groups. I believe the amendment calls upon members of parliament for a vote of nonconfidence in the government for not imposing controls.
I represent, sir, a constituency composed of farmers and many labouring men in and around the Estevan area. I have had many little cards sent to me, as have most of the members of this house. On checking these cards I find that the ones I have received, and I have hundreds of them, came from the labour group in my constituency. This card says that controls should be applied immediately to protect the living standards of our families. I am not opposed to controls, Mr. Speaker, in principle. I am going to answer, through the record, the people of my constituency who sent me these cards, because I have far too many to answer personally. I am going to say to them that in my opinion a large majority are sincere in asking for controls. They ask me for my support. Had they also requested control of wages, I assure them
that they would have obtained my support. However, I have neither read nor heard anything from union leaders suggesting that wages should be controlled. I would say, therefore, that at the moment they are barking up the wrong tree. They should ask their union leaders to come out and say they are willing to accept controls across the board.
I am going to deal with the farmers in a moment, but on this same card it says that rent controls should be maintained, and it urges me to support this legislation. As to rent control, again I say that in principle I am not opposed to it. But I think rent control is a provincial responsibility. I definitely think that the matter should be handled provincially, because it could be handled more efficiently in that way than by the federal government. For instance, I do not think anyone would suggest that the premier of his province and his government and the city councils could not sit down and work out a rent control scheme for that province better than could the federal government.
I will now speak for a moment about the farmers in my constituency, and I think what I say about them is applicable to the farmers in many parts of Canada. I have not read or heard anything to the effect that the farmers have said they want to be controlled across the board. I do not think farmers on the whole are opposed to controls; but at the moment I cannot see what a farmer has to gain by being controlled. The things that he has to sell, with the exception of beef, in recent months have gone down in price, and the things that he has to buy have gone up. I cannot see where he would benefit from controls at the moment. However, if the farmers want to come out, through their leaders and through the farmers' union, of which I am a member, and say that they want controls across the board, they will definitely get my support. At the moment, however, they have not said so, and I do not think the Canadian Federation of Agriculture has said so either.
I think the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), in the special session last fall, said that in his opinion one of the reasons why the government was not putting on controls, was that the people of Canada were not yet ready for them. I am quite satisfied that the farmers and labour in my constituency have not definitely stated that they want controls. I join to some extent with the official opposition, speaking through their leader, who intimated in the first part of his speech that he was in favour of controls and then before he finished said that we should support the C.C.F. amendment just on principle, even if

The Address-Mr. J. J. Smith we did not agree with it. At one time he is in favour of controls, and at another time he is not in favour of controls. I join with him and take the same position, because I do not know whether that would help the situation.
Some good comments have been made with regard to the speech from the throne. The opposition has given the house some food for thought. However, I have been less impressed by the criticism this time than I was in previous sessions when I was a new member, and, I admit, one who was very green and still is. They are now criticizing the government for not doing anything to head off inflation. When I came here first I sat in this chair and heard the members of the opposition say that prior to the session the government had hidden a depression. They said that we had a depression in Canada and that for election reasons the government had kept it out of sight; that we had lost our markets and that prices were going down. Representing the constituency which I have the honour to represent, Mr. Speaker, I sat in my chair and shivered. I thought that possibly what they were saying was true. However, it did not turn out to be the case. It is well to recall that the predictions which the opposition make do not seem to turn out; I do not know why.
Last spring, when it was said that we had an unemployment situation in Canada, the official opposition-and I think the other two oppositions joined with them-again called upon this government to bring in a public works program, or to start a building program across this country, so that it would take care of this unemployment and head off this so-called depression and tendency towards lower prices. Again I have to confess that I more or less agreed with them. I thought that was the situation, but it turned out not to be so. Some hon. members might say that the Korean war was the cause of that. But if the government of the day had gone into a program of public works, it would have laid itself wide open to criticism today, because the public works program is going to have to be cut down. I am not too critical of the opposition, Mr. Speaker, because it must be maddening to sit in the opposition and make statement after statement, only to find out that none of them turns out to be in accordance with the facts. They complain about the government not giving them any information. Under the circumstances I suggest that the government should give them some more information, so that when they make these assertions they will know what they are talking about.
I want to say a word about inflation. There is a great deal of talk about the man in the street and what a hard time he is having.


I can recall the time, in the thirties, when I started to farm in Saskatchewan. I had a hard time. It is true that the dollar is inflated today. Some people say that it takes two dollars now to buy what one would buy a few years ago. But I do not think it makes much difference to the average Joe, including the average farmer, whether the dollar goes only half as far as it used to, provided that he now has two or three instead of one. I think that is the picture throughout Canada today. I have not travelled over a great deal of Canada, but I have been around a little bit, and when I visit the towns and cities I do not go to the high-priced hotels. I visit my friends and relations who happen to live in the poorer parts of the city and quite close to the slums, if there are any. I find that today there is less difference between the poor man and the rich man than there has been at any previous time in the history of this country.
We have another group that are complaining about inflation. We have a certain number of people in this country who have bought insurance and government bonds and who have money in the bank. They are complaining because they thought at one time that the interest on those savings would keep them. They are in a bad way. I suggest to them that if they have not the standard of living they think they should have, they should spend a little of their principal in these days. If the principal will not keep them going, they have one consolation, Mr. Speaker. I am hopeful that we shall have the old age pension at seventy without a means test, and at sixty-five with a means test. If by that time they have not anything left, they can do as many of the rest of us may have to do, namely, live on the pension. If they will not be sixty-five at that time, then they can get out and work for a living as most of us Canadians do.
I am now going to turn to my final subject, and I wish to read a little poem I have here. I do not think the author was Shakespeare or Bobbie Burns or anyone of that calibre; he may have been one of my colleagues from the province of Ontario. It reads:
To the winging bird the only word is Tweet, tweet, tweet;
To the maid in spring the word she loves is Sweet, sweet, sweet;
But the damndest word X ever heard is Wheat, wheat, wheat.
I realize that to many hon. members wheat is not an interesting subject. I must confess that when hon. members are speaking about fish-and properly so, although I listen-I am not greatly interested. Since I represent a wheat-growing constituency, I am going to talk about wheat for a few minutes. Today in

-Canada, as most people know, wheat is handled through the Canadian wheat board. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the time will never come when I shall have to market my wheat in any other way. I want to make it very plain where I stand.
Some people argue that if we had an open market we would have received much higher prices for our wheat. That I question. I am going to use flax as an example, to show the house what happens on the open market. I think an open market is a crazy set-up. I harvested flax this fall, and therefore I am talking about something with which I am familiar. That is why I did not deal with external affairs. At the conclusion of the special session last fall 1 went home and got out the combine, and I threshed a fairly good crop of flax. As I said, I am using flax as an illustration to show the difference between the operations of the open market and those of the wheat board. I repeat that I am not in favour of the open market set-up. The law of supply and demand will definitely set what you are to get for a thing in the end, but I am not in favour of that method of marketing.
Coming back to flax, last fall while harvesting my flax I drew one load to the elevator. That was in October. I do not recall the date, but I sold it for $3.34 a bushel. It was the first grade of flax. The elevator man tested it for moisture, and it just got by. He said to me: "If it is tough tomorrow" -that was in the evening-"don't draw any in". The next day the sun did not come out, and I figured it might be tough, so I did not take it in. I put it in the granary and sold it in December before coming down here, and I received $4.70 a bushel for that flax. It was the same flax that I had sold for $3.34 a short time before. It has gone up since, and within recent days it has gone down. It dropped a matter of thirty cents a bushel in two days, fifteen cents a bushel a day. That is the same set-up as we had under the open-market scheme for wheat.
There are some hon. members who have made the statement-I do not know whether the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) is one of them but I know definitely that the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) is one of them-that the farmers had lost thirty-five cents a bushel under the wheat board set-up this fall. The price set by the board was $1.40. I do not think we lost thirty-five cents, because since then we have received twenty cents. The premier of our province has been running around the country and speaking over the radio, telling the western farmers that in Saskatchewan they have lost $100 million.
The Address-Mr. J. J. Smith If what he said was correct, then we have already received $56 million of that. That is what twenty fcents a bushel is going to amount to; and I am informed on very good authority that we can expect another twenty cents. Therefore we in the province of Saskatchewan are going to have under that scheme $12 million more than we lost.
I hear voices, Mr. Speaker, but I am not sure just where they are coming from.
In conclusion I wish to say that many of the farmers in western Canada are a little disappointed that the government has not seen fit to make an announcement on the five-year pool. It is true we have been told that negotiations are going on with the United Kingdom government.


Mr. Ross (Souris):: Not according to the Prime Minister.


John James Smith: Well, discussion, if that suits the hon. member better. I do not care whether it is discussion or negotiation. I was going to say that I was getting sick and tired, but I am going to leave out the word "sick"; I am not sick yet but I may be a little tired. I am not blaming the government at the moment for not making the announcement. But I urge the government to crack the whip and get going on this negotiation or discussion with the United Kingdom government and let us have a decision on what is going to happen in respect to the five-year pool payments.
Many figures have been given as to what we should get. The other day the hon. member for Souris said that we should receive fifty cents a bushel as a final payment on the five-year pool, but that we were willing to take twenty-five cents. That is charitable. We are willing to take half of what we think we should get. If I may say so, I think tha+ thirty cents a bushel would be closer to the mark, and I agree with him that we are willing to take half, which in that case would be fifteen cents. Of course that is only my own opinion. If we were to demand the last cent from the United Kingdom government that we calculate we have lost under the agreement-


James Arthur Ross: How about the Canadian government?


John James Smith: The hon. member had better get after them; I am talking about the other contract. If we were to demand the last cent from the United Kingdom government that we think we have lost, I think we would be a very mean people, particularly when we remember the battle of

The Address-Mr. Brooks Britain. We all know what Britain went through; but at the same time I do not think we should be expected to accept anything less than something in the neighbourhood of fifteen cents a bushel as a final payment. I would urge the government to do something before seeding time rolls around again or before Easter, about bringing this matter to a conclusion. I shall be going home at Easter, or at the end of the session. I have been following the session very closely, Mr. Speaker, and the policies of the government. I am prepared to go home and explain the policies of the government to my constituents. Unless we get something for this wheat I am not prepared to explain that; nor do I intend to make excuses.
We have a good strong government, and we are ready to support it. Once again I say we should have a settlement on this matter. However, I shall be speaking on this again, and if we get a settlement I think it should be in the neighbourhood of fifteen cents a bushel. I am prepared to make one of two addresses. If we get a fair payment, it will be a very pleasant and juicy address, but if there is nothing done, I can assure you, sir, that it will be sour and bitter.
I suppose that my colleagues and members of the opposition groups and some of the people in my constituency will say that I should not have said the things I have said; but I am quite sure that if they realize the consolation I get out of saying what I think, they will excuse me.


Mr. A. J. Brooks (Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. Smith) will pardon me if I did not follow his remarks very carefully. Unfortunately I could not hear the first part of his address. The second part of it had to do with wheat, which is not a matter of great interest to most members in the house, particularly those from the maritime provinces. I believe that in the sixteen years I have been here, practically fifty per cent of the time in debate has been taken up in the discussion of wheat.
For a few moments I should like to refer to the matter of controls. Two important matters have been before the house: first, our Canadian defence program, and second, controls and inflation. I shall not take much time in discussing inflation, because it was thoroughly covered by my leader yesterday. I will simply say that I agree one hundred per cent with the very practical ideas he expressed on the subject.
Contrary to what the hon. member who has just taken his seat may think, the people
TMr. Smith (Moose Mountain).]

of Canada are greatly exercised about controls and inflation. I believe that today it is the chief problem facing the people of this country, and certainly it is the problem which the people feel the government should deal with immediately. There is a feeling of impatience with the soaring of living costs throughout the country. Not only are the people impatient, but they have a genuine fear in their hearts about this condition.
Last night I listened to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), and I must say that to a great extent I agree with his remarks. To illustrate a point he made, he mentioned his having paid sixty cents for a collar which only a short time before could have been bought for thirty cents. Let me tell the house about an experience of my own in that regard. I went to a shoe store to buy a pair of shoes. The clerk told me that only the day before, the price of that particular type of shoe had increased by $2.50. While I was in the store a man who worked in a factory in our town came in, in company with his two boys, with the intention of buying shoes. He asked the price, and when he was told that the price of shoes for his boys had increased by more than $2, he said that he felt he could not buy at that time. Knowing that I was coming to Ottawa to attend the session, he turned to me and said, "You people up there will have to do something about this matter. It is becoming impossible for me to clothe and feed my family and to pay my rent, because of the way in which prices are soaring".
I am sure the experience of this man is that of all heads of families throughout the country. The hon. member for Moose Mountain said, "Oh, these people can use up their principal." The people I am speaking about -and there are tens of thousands of them across the country-have no principal to use up. The hon. member went on to say that the rich and the poor are in much the same position. That is not correct. The poor man today has not sufficient money with which to buy the necessities of life. This is one reason why I feel that the government must do something now to halt price increases. It is being done in the United States.
The hon. member for Moose Mountain says that the C.C.F., Social Credit and Progressive Conservative parties are backing controls. I would point out to him that in the United States today it is felt that a measure of controls is necessary. In Canada we are proud to follow the United States in many things. I believe that in this matter as well we would be wise to do so.
In the situation that is developing I am sure some controls have become necessary. I do not think over-all control is required,

The Address-Mr. Brooks
but certainly controls are necessary to some extent. I believe that public support would be behind a measure of controls at this time -and we must have public support; otherwise enforcement would not be possible. Some measure of control would curb the extra momentum gained by inflation at every step.
The other day the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) told us there were many interests which are opposed to controls. We know this to be true. We know, for instance, that the producer may be opposed to controls, and that many consumers are opposed to controls. This is always true in an economy where the supply of goods is reduced in relation to the supply of dollars. That is what is happening in Canada today, when civilian goods are being turned to military uses, with the resulting scarcity which is causing inflation. In view of the height to which prices have climbed, it seems clear that some measure of control should have been put on two or three months ago. For instance, we read only yesterday in the evening papers that coal had been increased in price by $1.75 a ton. Pick up a paper any day and you will find that prices are going up, not just a few cents, but in many instances by much larger amounts.
It is not my intention to discuss this matter further at the moment. All the evidence we have points to the fact that some measure of control must be exercised in Canada. I agree with the Minister of Finance that one way to help to stop inflation is to have heavy taxation. Unless we tax the people heavily, there can be no question that inflation will do so. These two might work together. I agree with the Minister of Finance that we must balance our budget. These things go hand in hand with controls, and if immediate action is taken it will be well for the people of this country.
The other question which is exercising the minds of our people is that of security and the part we should play in world events. Canadians are a proud people, and I am satisfied that they wish us to carry our full share of such defence measures as may be necessary to preserve the liberties we cherish. Speaking yesterday, one hon. member compared what was being done by Canada and by Great Britain. It was pointed out that while Great Britain had from 600,000 to a million men under arms-and he accepted the lower figure-Canada has only 60,000, showing a ratio of ten to one. This means that Great Britain, with a population slightly more than three times that of Canada, and with natural resources far inferior to those we have, has armed forces ten times as great as those of Canada.
There is the same ratio also in the United States. Much praise has been given the United States for the splendid work which is being done in Korea. We are all proud of our neighbours to the south for the action they have taken in that country. We feel that the United Nations took the only action that was possible. But it must be remembered that the United States was the only nation that had troops in that vicinity, and therefore she has had to bear a great burden there.
It must be remembered that while Great Britain has only one brigade in Korea, she has many thousands of troops in Malaya and a large army at Hong Kong. This is all part of the picture in the east. It should be pointed out also that France has a large army in Indo-China, which is part of the picture in the east. When we give great credit to the United States, as we should, for what she is doing in Korea, we must not forget the part that is being played by Great Britain and France in their respective areas.
Canada is going to spend $5,000 million in the next few years on defence. This is an enormous sum and should permit the raising and equipping of whatever troops are necessary. We should be able to produce the munitions that may be required. All sections of Canada are anxious to bear their fair and adequate share of the responsibility, both as to taxes and as to manpower. There is no question that every part of Canada will bear its share of taxes, because taxes are levied on the same basis all across the country.
If war should come and it is necessary for Canada to raise large forces, I think the people would wish that the raising of manpower be done in a way that will be fair to all sections of the country. Everybody knows that in time of war some men must fight, while others serve in other ways; and soldier and civilian morale will be much better if the selection for service is defined in the most understandable terms possible. I think the people of Canada wish and desire that that be done.
All sections of Canada-the maritimes, central Canada and the west-should have some share in the production of munitions and supplies. The minister has made much of the fact that equipment has been sent to Belgium and the Netherlands; that was a good thing and we approve of it. It was the logical and sensible thing to do. I am satisfied that since Canada is taking equipment from the United States we could not do less than send equipment to those people in Europe who will be fighting, if necessary, the battles of freedom.
I think also that the people of Canada approve of the defence of Europe. I have

The Address-Mr. Brooks heard very little talk of isolationism here in Canada, although there has been a good deal in the United States. I am thankful that we in Canada have not taken the same attitude as a great many people in the United States have taken, although it seems to be dying out. Everyone realizes that if the western hemisphere is to be defended, Europe also must be defended. One minister has said that if we should lose Europe to Russia in the next war we would lose one of the greatest manufacturing potentials in the world. We would lose all the steel and manufacturing centres to Russia. There is no reason in the world why Canadians should not approve the defence of Europe.
The question of arming Germany has come up. This is a difficult problem for the United Nations or others concerned to deal with. There is no doubt that eastern Germany is armed today. Russia has 50,000 east Germans under arms at the present time. They are equipped with tanks, guns and aeroplanes. If the other half of Germany is not armed, we may have the same situation as we had in Korea. The Russians armed the North Koreans while the United States left the South Koreans unarmed, Then they went away and the North Koreans moved into South Korea, and we all know the great difficulty our people have been having in trying to drive them back and to retain that country. So I think these matters, or most of them, have the approval of the Canadian people.
My main object in speaking this afternoon was not to touch on the matter of controls and the manpower problems that will arise should another war come, but to deal with another matter which is referred to in the speech from the throne, in the following words:
The urgent need of the St. Lawrence seaway and power project in relation to the security of this continent is becoming increasingly apparent. It is the view of my ministers that the Canadian authorities should be kept in a position to co-operate promptly in undertaking construction of the project once affirmative action has been taken by the appropriate United States authorities.
Anyone who has read the press of Canada and the United States during the last few weeks knows that the St. Lawrence seaway is a burning question in the United States. A bill has been introduced in congress by F. D. Roosevelt, Jr., a son of the late president, providing for the construction of the seaway and power project. In introducing the bill Mr. Roosevelt said:
The St. Lawrence seaway and power project will provide the least expensive means of providing necessary transportation of iron ore and other


critical materials and the least costly way of providing additional power-so badly needed in New York, New England and eastern Canada.
President Truman has said that it is necessary to construct this seaway for the national security of the United States and Canada. As one from the maritimes it is my opinion that the St. Lawrence seaway will be of absolutely no benefit to the people of the maritime provinces. However, I do not mean that the people of the maritime provinces will object to the construction of the St. Lawrence seaway. When our government and the government of the United States decide that the seaway is necessary for the defence of this continent we shall have no choice in the matter but to support it. Nevertheless, as I have said, as a peacetime project it would be of practically no benefit to the people of the maritimes. As a matter of fact it would be a hindrance, because there is no doubt that the main reason for constructing the St. Lawrence waterway would be to provide a great deal of additional electrical power to Ontario and Quebec; and the more power they have, the more industry will be concentrated in those provinces, to the detriment of the maritimes and the west. However, on the basis on which it probably will be constructed, as I said a moment ago we in the maritimes do not feel that we can raise any great objection.
In fairness to the people of our province, however, there is another project I should like to mention. It is also an international project, of interest both to the United States and to Canada. I refer to the development of hydroelectric power in Passamaquoddy bay and the bay of Fundy. This is not new; it has been advocated for a great many years, and has been investigated at different times. I remember that some twenty years ago the matter was discussed in the New Brunswick house when I was a member there; and while the Americans of that day were more or less in favour of it, we in Canada were opposed. The chief opposition at that time came from the fishermen of that area, who said it would ruin their industry. That idea now has been exploded, and engineers have reported very favourably on the feasibility of the project. Mr. Truman also favours it. As far back as last April an Associated Press dispatch from Washington said:
Mr. Truman was described today as favouring revival of the Passamaquoddy-Maine tidal power project.
Senator Brewster and Senator Smith of Maine and many other statesmen of the New England states also favour this project. What it would mean to the people of the maritime provinces, and particularly to the people of

New Brunswick, cannot be overestimated. At the outset it would mean a million horsepower divided between the New England states and the maritime .provinces. It would mean that our province would be placed on an equal footing with other sections of Canada so far as hydro power is concerned. If, therefore, the government of Canada feels that it must go through with the St. Lawrence seaway, in justice to the people of the maritime provinces, who in years past have contributed many millions toward the cost of projects in other parts of Canada and who would have to pay their share of the cost of constructing the St. Lawrence seaway, I think it is only fair that consideration be given the development of this international power project in Passamaquoddy bay, which would mean so much to our people.


Mr. Riley:: Or the Chignecto canal.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Yes; but one thing at a time. I should like to quote what the maritime board of trade has to say about this project, as contained in a report appearing in the Moncton Times a few months ago:
Low Cost Power is New Brunswick's Need
In the lengthy and important agenda which the maritime board of trade went through in executive session here, that regarding the projected harnessing of the tides of Passamaquoddy bay transcended all other features in so far as the future development of New Brunswick is concerned.
This is a prodigious scheme, greater than any other power project ever undertaken in the mari-times, and, if given the green light by United States congress and the Canadian parliament as a joint enterprise of the two neighbour nations, would mean an illimitable surge in the industrial and commercial expansion of New Brunswick and also a very large section of Prince Edward Island. Both these provinces have been greatly retarded in economic progress, because the natural resources in New Brunswick, capable of producing more than a sufficiency of electrical energy in continuous supply for an inestimable time and at low cost, have never been capitalized upon.
Then the last paragraph:
It is indeed encouraging that a favourable report is in prospect-
That report is not only in prospect; it has been submitted.
-as ensuing from the recent investigations conducted by the international joint commission into the projected development of electric power from 'Quoddy tides, and that consequent upon such a report there exists the strong possibility of future joint Canadian-American action to implement it. The completion of this scheme would surely witness the ushering in of an era that New Brunswick has long looked forward to as being a hive of industry and the scene of busy commercial enterprises of various types.
That pretty well expresses the opinion of the people of the maritime provinces. I want to congratulate the hon. member for Saint
The Address-Mr. Brooks John-Albert (Mr. Riley) on his excellent speech of a few days ago. He mentioned something which I am sure he would not claim to be new, because it has been mentioned in this house by myself and other maritime members on many occasions. I refer to the decentralization of industry in this dominion. During the last war I brought this matter to the attention of the government, and at that time the minister told me the main reason we could not have industry in the maritime provinces was that we did not have the hydroelectric power. Since that time we have developed new sources of power in the maritimes, and today are in a position to take on these small industries which were mentioned a few days ago by the hon. member for Saint John-Albert. If the government would carry out this extensive power development in Passamaquoddy bay, however, we could not only take on small industries; we could take on extensive industries as well.
We have been the neglected section of Canada. This is an old story, and I suppose many hon. members are tired of listening to it. But we have been sadly neglected. In the last war only one-half of one per cent of our war industry came to my province of New Brunswick. It was an absolute disgrace. Only two per cent came to the whole of the maritime provinces. Now we are threatened with another great war. Whether or not that war comes-and I sincerely hope it does not- billions of dollars are to be spent in the production of munitions and other military supplies, and surely it is time that we in the maritimes, who have always done our full share in supplying manpower for the defence and development of Canada, should receive more consideration from this government and the country in general.
My hon. friend spoke about manpower. We have the manpower in the maritime provinces, but unfortunately it does not stay there. Just this morning the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Hatfield) was telling me about seventeen young men who left the small village of Centreville in Carle-ton county in one day, to come to Ontario to look for work. I know that young men are leaving my own town daily, and I am sure the hon. member for Saint John-Albert knows of the hundreds who are leaving his city to come to Ontario and Quebec to find employment. A few days ago we had the great privilege of visiting the Canadair factory at Cartierville on the island of Montreal. I enjoyed that trip. There we saw thousands of young men. It was a regular hive of industry. We were told that there were 5,300 men working in that one factory.

The Address-Mr. Brooks I venture to say, Mr. Speaker, that there are more men working in that one factory in the city of Montreal on government work than there are in the whole of the three maritime provinces. I do not think it is necessary to argue this point any further, but I do hope this government will realize that we in these provinces are deserving of more consideration.
During the last war we trained many men in the maritimes. There was a splendid camp at my home town of Sussex, New Brunswick; another one at Debert, one at Aldershot and one at Utopia. I was amazed, as was the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes), to learn that all our men are now being sent to Fort Lewis in Washington for training. That might have been necessary when those men were being trained as a brigade, but why is it necessary now when we have all the space that we have in Canada to train our own soldiers? I recall that before the last war Great Britain wanted to train some airmen in Canada, and that move was opposed in this house because some members were afraid that Canada would lose her sovereignty if she allowed the troops of another country to come here to train. I have not heard of the United States losing her sovereignty because we sent a few thousand troops over there to train.
However, Mr. Speaker, that is beside the point. The point I wish to make is that since the maritimes have been so badly neglected in other matters, I see no reason why, when we shall be training a good many soldiers for some years to come, the camps at Sussex, Aldershot and other places should not be rebuilt. There is a good nucleus there for a start, and the men could be trained there.
I was amazed to hear that the men who were training at Fort Lewis received an extra $20 per month, and that the officers received an extra $40 per month, because they were training outside of our country. These extra payments amount to something like $200,000 a month for 8,000 men training in this area. The minister is not in his seat, but I should like to know just how much we are paying the United States authorities for the privilege of training our men in Washington. I venture to say that it runs into a tidy sum. I venture to say that the government could rebuild these camps in Sussex and other parts of the maritime provinces for the amount of money they are paying and will pay for having these men trained in the United States.
I listened with attention and interest to the speech delivered yesterday by the member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Gibson), because he mentioned a matter which is very close to us in the province of New Brunswick, and


that is the question of the conversion of our forests into pulpwood, one of the chief industries in New Brunswick. The price of pulp this winter has been so high, and the United States newsprint people have been so anxious to buy it, that almost every standing tree is being cut down for pulp. I feel that we are using up a heritage that belongs to the people who come after us. When the hon. member for Comox-Alberni mentioned the fact that each copy of a recent issue of a United States newspaper weighed three and three-quarter pounds, we were given some idea of the terrible waste. Trees that could be cut down later to make lumber are now going to the United States to be used for this purpose. It is about time something was done about it. I believe it would be preferable to send this pulp to Great Britain or some of the European countries where the newspapers contain only three or four pages. I would rather have a British paper of three or four pages, so far as real news is concerned, than some of these bulky twenty-five and thirty-page editions from the United States which contain a lot of trash. It is a shameful waste of pulp and of the forests of Canada.
I have some other notes here, Mr. Speaker, but I feel that I have spoken long enough. I wish to thank you for your kind attention.


Mr. John Decore (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, may I first of all join with those hon. members who have congratulated the mover (Mr. McMillan) and the seconder (Mr. Breton) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. The manner in which these two hon. members acquitted themselves has brought honour not only to them but also to the constituencies which they represent. I also want to join with the member for Athabaska (Mr. Dechene) in the high words of praise which he had for the newly appointed minister from Alberta, the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Prudham). Those of us who know the minister have been struck by his sincerity of purpose, his business ability, and above all his honesty. Some of us who know him quite well often refer to him as "honest George."
The speech from the throne has been significant in that it has conveyed to the people of Canada the fact that an emergency situation now exists in view of the further deterioration in the international field. The policy of our government, and the desire of the Canadian people, is to prevent war and maintain peace. However, the international tension today has been caused by communist imperialism in its determination to dominate the world by force or by the fear of force. We in Canada, and the people of the

free world, are compelled to take such steps in our national defence as may be adequate to safeguard our security.
The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) pointed out to us a few days ago what the government's national defence policy will mean to the Canadian taxpayer in dollars and cents. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) has indicated .some of the sacrifices which will be expected of the Canadian people. The same thing may be said of the Minister of Resources and Development (Mr. Winters) with regard to housing.
It is my intention in this debate to deal exclusively with the international situation. I might as well warn hon. members in this house, as well as the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), that some of the views which I shall express are probably different from some which have been expressed on this topic in this chamber. At the outset I feel that the difficult position in which we find ourselves today is, to a considerable extent, our own fault. When I say "our own fault", I mean the fault of the democratic countries towards whom the world looks for leadership and guidance in international affairs. It is true that when we fought the last war we defeated Hitlerism; but it would appear that we did not lay the foundations of a lasting peace. I think that the blame falls on the democratic world in that we failed to assess international communism and that at the same time we allowed another dictator to obtain tremendous powers, the like of which have never before been witnessed in the history of mankind. If we assess communism, we find that Marxist communism is a militant philosophy based on struggle. Because of the nature of its inspiring promises, it creates fanatics within its ranks. It is a philosophy that will not tolerate any criticism or stand for any opposition and therefore it cannot be appeased. Marxist communism is based on the teaching of the German philosopher Hegel who said that when you have two conflicting views or two opposing ideologies as between states, such differences can only be settled by war.
Let us face the facts. The world today is divided into two camps, with two opposing ideologies; our western world with our way of life and the communistic world which is being headed by the Kremlin. We can therefore ask ourselves this question. If my appraisal of the communist philosophy is correct, are we to expect that the communist leaders throughout the world, including Stalin and the fanatics in his ranks, will change their methods and mend their ways
The Address-Mr. Decore even if we match them plane for plane and soldier for soldier? The question is: Can a leopard change its spots?
Let me point out that it is not so much international communism with which we are obliged to contend as it is in effect with Russian imperialism. It is evident to all of us that international communism is merely being used by Stalin as a tool or instrument to further his own imperialistic designs. I repeat that it was a failure of the free world to assess communism in its true light and in allowing Stalin to obtain vast powers, many of them through default, that makes our .position now most difficult. However, this is now water under the bridge.
The Korean incident, although regrettable in that it has caused great sacrifices especially on the part of our good neighbour to the south, has nevertheless awakened the free world to the danger of international communism and Russian imperialism. The pattern of Stalin's operations should be clear to all of us by now. Although there may be a cease-fire in Korea, we must be prepared to face similar difficulties in other parts of the world. Only yesterday, I believe, Anthony Eden, in making a statement at Westminster, warned the world of grave possibilities in Yugoslavia in the near future.
Analogies are trick bases for argument, but the fact is that communism has many heads; and it is necessary to recognize the difficulties of the problem of destroying it. In Greek mythology many of us have heard of the hydra-headed monster which Hercules was given the task of destroying. I recall reading in the New York Times an editorial which appealed to me-incidentally it is dated October 25, 1950-and which reads in part as follows:
This simultaneous activity at opposite poles of the earth is a reminder of the hydra-headed character of international communism. It might be well for us to remember, too, that the heads of the mythical snake grew back again as fast as Hercules cut them off. He had to root out its body and destroy the one immortal head (shall we say the Kremlin?) before the monster was defeated.
Let us not forget that communism or communist imperialism is centred today in Moscow. Let us therefore, now that we realize the menace of communism and of Russian imperialism, be prepared to deal with our potential enemy effectively. Let us not underestimate his strength; but above all let us not overlook his weakness.
When I say that we must not underestimate the enemy's strength, I mean that certainly we must not underestimate the strength of the Red army, the strategic position of the

The Address-Mr. Decore soviet bloc and the aggressive leadership of international communism throughout the world. Certainly tanks, guns and planes are necessary and vital in our defence preparations. Should we be forced into it, there is no easy way to fight Soviet Russia, but I think Hitler has shown us the hard way of doing so. Let us not fall into that fallacy which lay at the root of Hitler's stupidity when he thought that Soviet Russia could be beaten by military means alone. Probably I should modify that statement and say that perhaps Soviet Russia can be beaten by military means alone but at a terrible price.
When the nazis launched their attack on Soviet Russia, they met with such huge successes at first that it was almost unbelievable. Hundreds of thousands of men laid down their arms and surrendered to the Germans. The population welcomed the Germans, not because they had any love for the nazis but because they looked upon them as liberators from the Kremlin oppressors. It was only after Hitler treated these people in the same brutal fashion as he treated the Jews that the population turned against him, with the results that were indicated in the battle of Stalingrad.
What is this weakness in Soviet Russia's empire today which we must not overlook and which we must be prepared to capitalize on? Many people in Canada and throughout the free world do not fully appreciate the fact that within the borders of Soviet Russia there are about one hundred ethnic groups, the most numerous being the Russians themselves. The Russians, however, comprise less than half of the total population in the U.S.S.R.; and during the time of the czars and during the time of Stalin they have been the motivating or driving force of the nation. Their dominance over the smaller minorities, however, has been made possible because of their superiority in numbers; but it has always been resented by those smaller minorities.
May I say that the apparent unity which exists in the Soviet union today has been made possible through slave camps, liquidations and mass extermination of racial, ethnical and religious groups as such. We can feel quite certain that the rulers in the Kremlin, in order to maintain further unity within their borders or that so-called unity within the Soviet union, must resort to further mass exilings, slave camps and liquidations. The national problems of the Soviet are one of their most vulnerable spots. We can, I think, rely on these suppressed people to be the most certain allies of democracy against the Red tyranny.

Let us also bear in mind the fact that today there are millions of political prisoners in concentration camps and under slave labour conditions. There are today throughout the Soviet union hundreds of thousands of families, one or more of whose members have either been liquidated or sent to slave camps for political reasons.
The fact is that in spite of nearly two generations of indoctrination, despite the mass exilings and mass liquidations, despite the slave camps and the dread secret police to crush all opposition, there is a bitter resentment against Stalin's regime. That, Mr. Speaker, is where is to be found the enemy's weakest spot-in that smouldering opposition of the population against its oppressors in the Kremlin, which once aroused can become a weapon in our favour much more effective than the atom bomb itself.
And what about the satellite states such as Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Roumania and Czechoslovakia? Apart from Titoism, which is prevalent within the communist ranks itself, there is evidence of a strong but latent underground, an opposition which is smouldering but waiting for an opportunity.
The menace of the Soviets to freedom' is realized by the democratic world but it is also important that the Soviet's weakness should receive attention. It is already receiving attention from prominent men throughout the world and among them is Harold E. Stassen, president of the university of Pennsylvania, and a prominent Republican, who in a radio address over the national network made this statement. Incidentally his observations were based on a trip that he made around the world. He said, as reported in the New York Times of January 16, 1951:
First of all I received information all around the outside of the vast communist empire of the discontent and unrest within the Soviet union and within the iron curtain countries. This includes the red army itself.
According to the New York Times he urged the United States to rearm and called for solid support of General Dwight D. Eisenhower. He also urged a revision of the United States foreign policy, and sought certain goals. I quote further from the New York Times:
The establishment of separate national sovereignty and true independence of the Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Roumania, Bulgaria and Hungary.
The release of all of the millions of political prisoners now in concentration camps and under forced labour in the Soviet union.
The granting of the Russian lands to the Russian peasants for their own farming.

The granting of the right of genuine labour unions to organize and bargain collectively everywhere in the world. The winning of the right of all the people to worship God as they choose.
That, Mr. Speaker, is a very inspiring message to those millions of people behind the iron curtain. It gives them new hope and new encouragement. It hits at the very heart of Stalin's brutal tyranny. How much more effective this message would be if it was the official policy of the United States, of Canada and of the free world?
Canada of course does not decide the United States foreign policy nor that of the United Kingdom. But it is one of the member states of the North Atlantic treaty. From the observations I made while being associated with the recent Canadian delegation to the United Nations assembly, I realized the tremendous role that Canada does play in international affairs, and realized also the weight exerted and the ability recognized by delegates to the United Nations from throughout the world of our own Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson).
Someone would say that this type of policy which I call "political warfare" if adopted, shall we say by Canada and the western democracies, would offend Mr. Stalin. No doubt it will offend Mr. Stalin. It is a weak spot in his armour, but let us not forget that he has left no stone unturned through the use of the communist international organization, the cominform, to rouse and whip up fifth columnists and traitors in Canada and other countries; to create fear and unrest. One of his most effective weapons against the world in creating fear and distrust has been the use by him of this so-called political warfare.
Let us turn the tables on him and give him back some of his own medicine. Let us offer new hope and new encouragement to those millions behind the iron curtain who are our potential allies, by supporting them in what we believe in and what is the very foundation of democracy, namely, freedom.


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: In rising to take part in this debate, along with previous speakers, I wish to congratulate both the mover (Mr. McMillan) and the seconder (Mr. Breton) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I am sure each did credit to himself and to the constituents whom he represents.
The point at issue in the debate at the moment is the C.C.F amendment which has been moved by the hon member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), asking the immediate reimposition of price controls and the payment of subsidies where necessary so as to protect the health and living standards of the Canadian people.
The Address-Mr. Argue
I listened with great attention to the speech of the hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. Smith). He said that he would support our amendment had we included in it the provision that wages should also be controlled.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the provision for the control of wages is already part of the amendment, as it has been moved. It says:
. . . the immediate reimposition of price controls ... so as to project the health and living standards of the Canadian people.
To my mind price controls mean prices of all commodities, including wages. We ask that controls shall be implemented in such a way as to protect the health and living standards of the Canadian people We suggest therefore by those words that any control of wages or any control of farm prices that would stem from the adoption of this amendment shall be control in a fair and equitable manner.
Then the hon. member for Moose Mountain went on to say that he was a member of the farmers' union. I took down his words. He said: "If the farmers' union will support controls I too will support controls." I should like to read to him a resolution which was passed at the most recent annual convention of the Saskatchewan Farmers' Union held in Saskatoon between the dates of December 12 and December 15. The resolution reads as follows:
Whereas we, the members of the farmers' union, view with alarm the general economic trend wherein prices in general are sure to be increased, and are convinced that security lies in price control,
Therefore be it resolved that we demand that the federal government put price controls in effect at a point comparable with farm prices.
This resolution proves beyond doubt that the farmers' union are solidly behind price control. I suggest to the hon. member for Moose Mountain that we shall welcome now his support of our amendment asking for price controls, since the Saskatchewan Farmers' Union, of which he is a member, is supporting price controls at this time.
Last night I listened with attention to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) elaborate upon and enumerate the various fiscal and monetary measures the government had already taken to deal with inflation. He suggested that those measures were getting at the root cause of inflation, and suggested further that this was no time to implement over-all price controls.
The best way for one to judge whether those monetary and fiscal measures have been and are effective is to look over the price increases in the last twelve months and compare those increases with the increase in the cost of living index in the twelve months immediately
318	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Argue preceding the imposition of price controls in 1941. In looking over that index one finds that while it increased by 8 [DOT] 1 points between September 1940 and September 1941, and while the government following that increase felt it was necessary to have over-all price controls, the increase in the price index between January 1950 and January 1951 has been, not 8-1 points but 11-5 points. In other words, if there was any reason to impose price controls in 1941-and there was-then there is even greater reason today.
The degree of inflation rampant in the Canadian economy today and for the past twelve months is even greater than the degree of inflation which prevailed prior to the government's imposing over-all price controls in the fall of 1941.
Last night the minister seemed to take great exception to the suggestion put forth by the .leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) that because of inflation our government bonds were no longer the same safe and secure investment they had once been. It seems to me that, with the runaway inflation as we have it today, many Canadians will consider seriously cashing their bonds and discontinuing the purchase of bonds as a method of saving.
One has but to look at what has happened in the last five years to the value of the dollars Canadians have invested in government bonds to see that there are many investments which have been much more secure. In January 1946 the cost of living index was 119-9; five years later, in January 1951, it had increased to 172-5. The purchasing power of a $100 bond bought in January 1946, according to the government's cost of living index, is today only $69.52, on the basis of 1946 prices.	.
So that anyone who bought a $100 bond in January, 1946, and cashed it in January of 1951 would find that instead of getting $100 in value, the $100 they would obtain would buy goods to the value of only $69.52, on the basis of 1946 prices. In other words, anyone who invested $100 in government bonds in January, 1946, has in the last five years lost $31.48 in purchasing power. If the bond had been a Canada savings bond, always worth one hundred cents on the dollar as a monetary value, the interest in those five years would have amounted to $13.75. Therefore anyone who purchased a bond five years ago and cashes it today finds his net loss, after deducting interest, amounts to $17.73, in relation to purchasing power.
I make the statement that any time the value of the Canadian dollar goes down


faster than the rate of interest on our bonds, then at that point our bonds cease to be a safe, secure, sound and attractive investment. The minister said that during the session last fall, and since that time, the government has been getting at the root causes of inflation by drawing in some of the excess purchasing power.
One of the measures I presume the minister would advance in support of his contention that there has been an effort to reduce the supply of money in the country would be the small, the almost insignificant, increase in the corporation tax, amounting to an additional 5 per cent. That in itself, as events have proven, is not, I am afraid, an antiinflationary measure of any real strength. At the session last fall the government failed to take one of the most important fiscal measures that I believe-and I said it at that time- they should have taken. That is, there should have been not increases in the sales tax on soft drinks, /chocolate bars and chewing gum, but a substantial increase in the income tax as it affects the people in the higher income brackets.
If any tax can be considered fair, and based upon ability to pay, then surely it must be a properly graduated income tax. But the government did nothing last fall to draw off the excess purchasing power in the hands of the well-to-do people in Canada. At the same time it did not hesitate to ask for and to implement the authority it was given to curtail instalment buying. It has not hesitated at this session to increase the amount of the down payment to build a house under the National Housing Act.
I am opposed to any legislation similar to the increase in down payments on instalment buying or the increase in down payments under the National Housing Act, when such provisions are drafted in such a way that they merely prevent the lowest income groups from making necessary purchases. I say the type of legislation we have for the curtailment of instalment buying, and the announcement with respect to down payments under the National Housing Act, taken in the light of the fact that as yet there has been no increase in the income tax levied against the well-to-do, is nothing short of class legislation.
I have here an editorial appearing in the Co-operative Consumer, the official publication of the various consumer co-operatives throughout Saskatchewan. Those associations are composed of tens of thousands of members throughout the western provinces, most of whom are farmers. The editorial says this:
The imposition of credit controls is intended to reduce the demand for certain classes of consumer

goods among the Canadian people. It is expected that this decreased demand will tend to halt the present trend toward inflation but those who favour the credit restrictions fail to see that these restrictions do not limit purchases by persons of wealth. Indeed, such credit restrictions are a subtle type of economic class privilege since only the poor people may be unable to make the necessary down payments and unable to complete payment for major items in the limited term allowed for such payment. Rich men and rich women can still buy at their pleasure. The wife of the poorly paid labourer, teacher, pastor or other worker, may have to forget her dreams of a new refrigerator or a new washing machine. The struggling young couples with their young families see their only chance to secure many of those things which make life worthwhile vanish with the introduction of anti-poor credit controls. The regrettable feature of the whole credit control situation lies in the fact that these credit controls establish the principle of economic class legislation-*
I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments expressed in that editorial. The editorial goes on to suggest certain methods that might have been used in place of this so aptly termed class legislation. The editor states that if the government had desired to cut down the purchase of new automobiles in a fair and equitable manner it might have established a permit system which would not allow anyone driving an automobile of a model say later than 1945 to purchase a new car. Or it might have required permits for the purchase of refrigerators, washing machines and so on, which would make them available only to mothers of families. I think that type of allocation of scarce consumer goods would be more in the interests of the Canadian people and the cause for which we are raising such a large army, navy and air force than legislation which has the effect of pushing even lower the standard of living of thousands of people who cannot afford to pay 20 per cent down when they purchase a new refrigerator or make a down payment twice as large as that previously required under the National Housing Act.
I want now to discuss the effects of price controls on farmers and their attitude toward price controls. If I can interpret their resolutions correctly the farmers of Canada do not want an over-all price freeze on every single item of goods the farmer sells or goods the farmer produces at current prices, but they are asking for price controls which will mean parity prices for the farmer, parity prices for the worker and will permit-


John James Smith: Go ahead, hang yourself.


Hazen Robert Argue: -the average Canadian to maintain himself and his family on a decent standard of living. I notice the hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. Smith) interrupts to say that I should not hang myself. I am
The Address-Mr. Argue sure that if I hang myself by this speech I shall only be following the example he has already set.


John James Smith: That is what you think.


Hazen Robert Argue: I come now to the question of how much the government should pay as a final payment on the five-year pool. I notice the hon. member for Moose Mountain, the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Sinnott) and the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Larson) have advocated a payment in the neighbourhood of 15 cents per bushel. I shduld like to refer the hon. member for Moose Mountain to another resolution passed by the Saskatchewan Farmers Union of which he says he is a member-since he says he will support their demands for price controls. I should not hesitate to support their demands in connection with a final payment on the five-year pool demanding a settlement on the basis of not less than $2 per bushel, basis No. 1, Fort William. If that resolution were implemented it would have the effect of providing a final payment of 25 cents per bushel on the five-year pool.
Lest there be any misunderstanding in any quarter of this house or of the country, let me say that I support foursquare the demands of the Saskatchewan Farmers Union, the Alberta Farmers Union, the Saskatchewan association of rural municipalities, the Alberta wheat pool, other farm organizations and individual farmers who have written to me all demanding a payment of 25 cents per bushel. To date I have received no resolution passed by any group of farmers saying that they would be satisfied with a payment of 15 cents per bushel. Rather I have had many resolutions from farm organizations and from local groups of farmers saying that, if anything less than 25 cents per bushel is paid, farmer delegations will be in Ottawa shortly afterward demanding a further payment until the total payment is at least 25 cents per bushel.
On August first there was a drop in the initial price of 35 cents per bushel, followed by a lack of box cars and a lack of marketing facilities. All these things taken together have resulted in my opinion in reducing support for the policies the government has directed the wheat board to follow.
Farm organizations and the vast majority of farmers support the wheat board and ask that its powers be extended to cover the handling of oats, barley, flax and rye.
When the government is considering the final payment they should take a number of factors into account. Last fall the initial price dropped 35 cents per bushel. Our crop

The Address-Mr. Argue was severely frosted and the spreads were increased to the point where the price of feed wheat at the local elevator point was 80 cents odd per bushel. And when the farmer tried to market his wheat he was told there was a shortage of box cars, that most of our box cars were in the United States. The government, the board of transport commissioners and the railroad companies all taken together could not get enough box cars to handle the shipment of last fall's crop.
We used to have a quota system which worked very well. That was followed conscientiously by the wheat board and supported by farmers. But this fall the quota system seemed to literally break down. An eight-bushel quota was first established at most points. At a great many local delivery points, long before the eight-bushel quota was filled the quota was lifted. At my neighbouring elevator point of Dahinda the elevators plugged up on the Thursday before Thanksgiving day. At that time farmers had delivered only approximately half the eight-bushel quota; yet the following morning the elevator agents received wires from the wheat board lifting the quota. The farmers were disappointed and angry. At that time many had not sold a single bushel of the 1950 crop, and even today in that area I know a number of farmers who have not sold any of their 1950 crop.
I believe in the quota system but I think it should be applied fairly, and should be maintained at our local elevator points until almost every farmer has delivered his full quota. I do not know the reason for the situation which prevailed at Moose Jaw this fall, but I know that situation provoked a great deal of criticism in an area of perhaps a hundred miles around that city. I was told Moose Jaw had a quota of twenty bushels per acre; I have been told since that it had no quota at all. If there was a quota at Moose Jaw, certainly it was a large one. At the same time early last fall all the towns on the Soo line, the towns on the C.N.R. line south of Moose Jaw and the towns along the C.P.R. line west -of Weyburn, had small quotas and very few box cars. So farmers trucked their wheat to Moose Jaw from up to seventy-five miles away because their local elevators could not handle the grain. We had the spectacle of farmers hiring truckers and paying twelve to fifteen cents a bushel to have their grain hauled to elevators seventy-five miles away because the elevators within two or three miles were full and could not handle their crops. I believe the distribution of box cars should have been handled

in such a way as to give the farmers adjacent to each delivery point a chance to market at least a reasonable proportion of their 1950 crop.
We are asking for a final payment of 25 cents a bushel under the five-year pool. That will amount to a great deal of money. Some of those who have taken part in this debate have agreed with the hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. Smith), who spoke this afternoon, and have said the Canadian government should crack the whip over the British government and make them come through with a further payment. The right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) was in London last year, and when he came back he had something to say about the negotiation in which he had participated concerning the "have regard to" clause. This is what he said at page 3221 of Hansard for June 5, 1950:
We asked the United Kingdom what further settlement it is to make on account of the "have regard to" clause. The United Kingdom government took a very strong position that they had filled all obligations under that clause, and so far as the United Kingdom was concerned. We agreed on behalf of Canada that considering all the circumstances that was the case.
From that quotation we see that according to our own minister, in June of last year the British government had fulfilled the "have regard to" clause of the wheat agreement. The farmers of western Canada took exception to that statement. They are not demanding that the British government only shall make the payment of 25 cents per bushel. They are saying to the government of Canada, "As our agents for the marketing of our wheat over a five-year period, we think you should see that the "have regard to" clause is fulfilled. If in your wisdom you think the British government has fulfilled that clause, then we believe you should make up the difference between the final surplus in the wheat pool account and the 25 cent payment we are asking-if necessary out of the national treasury". So I say to the government that the farmers of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta are asking a final payment of 25 cents , a bushel; and they are asking this government to take whatever steps are necessary to see that this final payment is forthcoming.
I believe certain changes should be made in the wheat board act and in the policy which has been followed by the wheat board. I welcome the 20 cent increase in the initial prices for wheat and barley and the increase of 10 cents in the initial price for oats; but when that announcement was made I believe a statement should have been issued showing the present financial position

of the wheat board so the farmers would have, a reasonable idea what the final payment at the end of the year would be after the crop had been marketed. Further, I believe the annual report of the wheat board should be made public within three months of the end of the crop year, again in order that the farmers of the west may know the financial position of the wheat board and the amount of money they may expect to receive in further payments.
In asking for a final payment of 25 cents per bushel the farmers are calling upon the federal government to make up part of that amount out of the national treasury, because throughout the five-year pool the Canadian consumer obtained wheat at a price lower than was received for class II wheat on the world market. Farmers know that the cheap flour and bread policy of the government was not paid for in the main out of the national treasury, but was paid for by a few thousand prairie farmers. Today the farmers of western Canada are still subsidizing the Canadian consumer. For wheat sold in Canada and going into the production of flour the millers of this country are paying at present about $1.90 a bushel, basis No. 1 northern, Fort William, which is the ceiling under the international wheat agreement. At the same time class II wheat is being sold in world markets at $2.12 per bushel. So on every bushel of Canadian wheat going into Canadian consumption the farmers of the west are subsidizing the Canadian consumer to the extent of 22 cents. I object to a policy of that kind. I do not object to wheat being sold1 at $1.90 per bushel or less; but if the Canadian consumer is to get cheap wheat let it be at the expense of all the people of Canada, not at the expense of one section of our population, in this case our wheat farmers.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, once again I urge upon the government the necessity of making a final payment of 25 cents a bushel under the five-year pool, and making that payment immediately.


Mr. G. F. Higgins (Si. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to join with all previous speakers in congratulating the mover (Mr. McMillan) and seconder (Mr. Breton) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne on their excellent speeches. I was particularly struck with the remarks of the hon. member for Welland (Mr. McMillan) in referring to the contributory health plan to meet the cost of major accidents and sicknesses. I feel sure all members of this house are in accord with that idea, and I trust that the hon. member will keep on putting his plan forward until the government sees fit to adopt it.
The Address-Mr. Higgins
The accent so far in this debate has been on external affairs. I trust that I will be pardoned if I refer to Newfoundland matters for a short time. I do so because some of them have a bearing on the international situation. In that connection I refer to Gander airport, about which you have heard so much as the crossroads of the world, and the extension of the runways that is now contemplated. I wish to thank the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) for finally acceding to the request for the extension of these runways. I have a number of questions on the order paper one of which concerns the materials to be used in the new construction. However, at this time I should like to draw the attention of the Minister of Transport to the fact that the runways are macadam now, and from the experience of those operating the planes at Gander it would appear necessary that the new construction, indeed, the whole of the runways, should be of concrete.
Recently one of the managers told me that in landing heavy aircraft such as the Boeing Stratospheres at certain times, the runways give the impression of being composed of snow. The planes would weave around. As I have said during other sessions, if Gander is going to be forced again into the position of being vital to the defence of the free world, then we have to have these runways in such condition that they will be able to carry the heavy war planes that will be put in use.
When speaking of Gander I should like also to draw the attention of the minister concerned to the condition of Goose airport. As hon. members will realize, Goose is probably the most strategic airport for the defence of the western world. I am not in a position to give any description of the condition or length of the runways of this airport, but I trust that those concerned will see to it that if extensions or repairs are required they will be undertaken before the need becomes too urgent.
There is one other factor in connection with Gander that I wish to bring to the attention of the Minister of Transport, and that concerns an organization in Newfoundland that is known as NONIA, Newfoundland Outport Nursing and Industrial Organization. This is a philanthropic body that has been in operation for some twenty-five years, and which is today primarily concerned with the weaving and knitting of wearable goods of high quality. The materials are distributed to various people throughout the province who make some little extra money in their spare time by knitting or weaving these woollen goods. One of the main places NONIA had for the sale of these goods was
322	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Higgins at Gander airport, where a display counter was maintained and a considerable amount of goods sold. Since the Department of Transport took over the airport, NONIA has been completely removed from Gander.
The other day the NONIA committee for this year issued a report in which there is a paragraph reading as follows:
It is with regret we report a complete "shut-out" for our goods at the Gander terminal. Last year, while the booth was under government supervision, we sold $3,000 worth but now that the concession has been given to a private firm, we are completely overlooked. It is to be deplored that such high-class goods, handiwork of Newfoundlanders, are banned from this important selling centre, where wide publicity could be given.
In that connection I may say that within the past year the government of Newfoundland had Mr. Leo Dolan, who is chief of the Canadian travel bureau, make a survey of Newfoundland tourist requirements. In Mr. Dolan's recently released report there appears this paragraph:
I saw, to my amazement, some of the handicraft progress already made in your island. The merchandising of these handicrafts should become a very profitable business. You have a handicraft industry that has a remarkable potentiality. I recommend that steps be taken to make the airport the show window of Newfoundland. I think all Newfoundland handicrafts ought to be on display.
Mr. Speaker, as you are aware Newfoundland is again trying to develop its tourist industry. One of the important phases of that tourist industry is naturally the display and sale of Newfoundland goods. As I have said, one of the chief outlets has been lost. It is easy to see why it would be the chief outlet because there are 1,400 passengers daily passing through Gander from all over the world. It is one of the greatest show windows we have for these goods, and it is closed. I would urge the Minister of Transport that immediate steps be taken whereby NONIA will be permitted to display and sell these goods at the airport.
I have another "thank you" to make, and this time it is to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), for his interest in promoting the increased sale of Bell island iron ore. As the minister is aware, we have had a number of questions back and forth in the house during past sessions about this matter, and I feel he has taken an active part in the recent sales increases. The operating company, Dosco, has announced its intention of making improvements in the handling and mining facilities which will cost about $6 million. It is said that the greatest labouring force in Bell island's history will be working there within a short time.
In thanking the minister for that, I am sure that he will appreciate that when the Greeks bear gifts they look for something


else. I am not asking the Minister of Trade and Commerce this time, but I am asking the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) if he will recall my request to him some time ago concerning the condition of the wharf at Portugal Cove. With the greatly increased production, and the increased number of people going to live and work on Bell island, that pier becomes all the more important. At one time last session the minister, I presume through a misunderstanding, said he was going to have that pier repaired. At a later date he said he was not going to have it repaired. As I understand it, the reason now given is that, because it is a pier for a ferry, his department is not able to do it. With the increased importance of Bell island, particularly in view of the possible war ahead, I submit that these little difficulties such as the question of whether it is or is not a ferry pier, should be overlooked and that a proper and suitable pier should be provided for the people of Bell island to use. Outside of St. John's, it is the most congested part of the whole of Newfoundland. I submit to the minister that it is a great hardship for the people of that island if they are not going to be provided with proper facilities.
The other matter that I have to thank you for, sir-as my colleague the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Browne) has done- is the freight rates decision. But I am not so certain that there should be any great thanks for that. After all, it was a matter that was clearly laid down in the terms of union and the decision was merely implementing what should have been done without any recourse to any board or any other form of tribunal. Actually, Newfoundland was put to quite considerable expense in having to go to the various tribunals; so as a quid pro quo for what should have been done, I think it is a fair and reasonable proposition to ask for compliance with the request of the Newfoundland board of trade that proper accommodation on the newly-constructed ferry from Port aux Basques be provided for freight cars. With the dimensions of that ferry as announced by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) some time ago, it would be possible to carry twenty or thirty freight cars on it. If that accommodation was provided, not only would there be avoided a great deal of damage to goods resulting from the way they are at present carried but there would be a considerable reduction in the cost of goods going into the island. I would endorse my hon. friend's request in that connection, and I trust that the minister will bear it in mind.

There is one other matter to which I should also like to direct attention. It is paragraph 45 in the terms of confederation. The provision in subparagraph (1) is as follows:
Should the government of the province of Newfoundland institute an economic survey of the province of Newfoundland with a view to determining what resources may profitably be developed and what new industries may be established or existing industries expanded, the government of Canada will make available the services of its technical employees and agencies to assist in the work.
I do not know what the position is with regard to that particular clause in the terms of confederation, but I know that a number of outside organizations have been brought into Newfoundland, at considerable cost to the taxpayers of that province, in order to do exactly what that particular clause envisioned. I know that at the present time there are two firms engaged in making surveys. One is engaged in making a survey of power and the other is engaged in making a general economic survey. I do not know the full name of the latter firm but the short name of it is Ibec. It is an American corporation somewhat loosely associated with the Rockefellers. The other corporation is the Power Corporation of Canada which is making a survey of water powers. As I said before, I do not know whether application has been made by the province of Newfoundland for the assistance envisioned in that clause. If not, I should like to know why it was not done; and if such a request has been made, I should like to know why it was not acceded to.
There are just a couple of other Newfoundland matters to which I wish to refer. One is in connection with defence expenditures. Here I must re-echo the remarks made by the hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Riley) and by the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks). I hope that, in allocating these expenditures, the powers-that-be will remember that for all practical purposes Newfoundland is part of Canada. It would be a great help indeed if some of that money could be funnelled into that province. During the past war there were a number of naval installations there that were of great importance in the winning of the war. I see no reason at all why those naval installations could not be brought back into active service again. At the present time they are merely lying up. They will rust out quicker than they will wear out. If I had the euphonious tones of the hon. member for Saint John-Albert, I might go further into this matter. But if he and the hon. member for Royal will take it as understood that I endorse everything they said, and if the ministers opposite will do the same, I shall not trespass further with regard to that particular point.
80709-21J
The Address-Mr. Higgins
As hon. members are aware, Newfoundland is the only province of Canada that has United States bases. As I intimated on previous occasions, we are not by any means unhappy about this fact; but I think it is about time that we again had a clear-cut statement, under the present circumstances, as to who is to take over the defence of Newfoundland in the event of war. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) visited us last summer and I believe he conferred with the United States military authorities. I feel that it would be in order to ask him to make a statement, when he has the opportunity to do so, with respect to the defence of Newfoundland.
Another matter that I should like to bring to the attention of the genial Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Mayhew) is the question of the Industrial Development Bank. I understand that by the charter of this bank it is impossible to obtain loans for fisheries. I think this is a matter which should be remedied. I think it is equally important that not only the fisheries of Newfoundland but the fisheries of Canada generally should be in a position to apply to the Industrial Development Bank for assistance. This brings me to the question of fish.
The hon. member who preceded me spent considerable time on wheat. Wheat is extremely important to him and to his constituents. To us fish is the most important thing in the country. Some 50 per cent of the people of Newfoundland live directly out of the fishery. Because of that fact, it can be easily realized what an important factor fish is in the economy of the country. Associated with fish is the question of being able to sell it. The bulk of our salt fish is sold to countries that have great difficulties in converting their money. I would ask the minister to be prepared to make convertibility of sterling possible at the time this new year's catch is to be sold. Last year, as a result of delayit was impossible for a considerable quantity of fish to be sold. I would also ask that serious consideration be given by the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Mayhew) to the idea of a guaranteed price for shore fish. Last year there was a guaranteed price for Labrador fish. I know from the people in my own area that unless something of the same nature is given for shore fish, we shall not have people going fishing this year. This is therefore an important matter and I would ask the minister to take it into consideration.
I am not in a position to endorse as strongly as I should like to the remarks made by the hon. member for St. John's West; but if the situation that he spoke about exists, then definitely a serious investigation with respect to the fisheries is required. Personally I can

The Address-Mr. Higgins hardly realize it is quite as bad as he stated; but he has made a study of it and probably is aware of what he speaks.
In that connection, last night I listened to the remarks of the hon. member for Trinity-Conception (Mr. Stick) who endorsed the remarks of my colleague. I was particularly taken with a portion of the remarks of the hon. member. At page 283 of Hansard he is reported as having said:
Hitherto in this house I have refrained from speaking of things provincial or things pertaining to my riding. I did so for the very good reason that I did not want my presence here to be misunderstood.
He continued:
I believe we have been here long enough now for the people of Canada to understand, so I can now revert to form and in this speech refer to matters pertaining to my province and to my riding.
I hope that the hon. members associated with the hon. member for Trinity-Conception will also have the same feeling, because it is very important that Canada should understand the position of Newfoundland and all her troubles. I would ask the hon. members, two of whom I see opposite me this afternoon, whether they will join with the hon. member for Trinity-Conception. Let us have a united front. We might even form a maritime bloc here.
In another part of his speech the hon. member for Trinity-Conception said, as reported at page 284:
For fifteen, years in Newfoundland we had a fonn of government that we called a little dictatorship. You may call it bureaucratic, if you like.
Later on he said:
Since I have come here, particularly lately, I have found a certain amount of the bureaucratic business that we had in Newfoundland years ago.
Surely, the hon. member does not mean to imply'that this government is a little dictatorship in any way. That would be a terrible thing.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is a big one.


Gordon Francis Higgins: We all know that is the wrong name. It is not a little dictatorship; it is quite a big one by the look of hon. members opposite. I must confess it came to me as a complete surprise to hear the hon. member say this:
We now find that all requests going in are answered with one word "no," that defence comes first, and that we must economize. I would say that'there is such a thing as false economy.
He continues:
It requires no brains to say "no." You can teach a parrot to say that.
Surely he does not mean that hon. members on the other side of the house have been taught to say "no" to Liberal requests. I 
would understand it, frankly, having had the experience with requests from hon. members on this side of the house; but it is certainly new for a request by a Liberal member to be turned down. There must be something rotten in the state of Canada or in the Liberal party. What is it? At all events, it is very pleasant to hear him speaking out. I trust that other Newfoundland members will have the same spirit and will speak out in the same way. That is about all I have to say on Newfoundland affairs.
The remainder of my time I am going to devote to a few comments on outside matters.
I must confess that I was taken with the reply of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) last week to the conscription issue. As far as I am concerned it is only fair to say that he adopted a frank and manly attitude, and he is to be complimented on it. In making that statement as he did he had the advice of the Secretary of State for External Affairs iMr. Pearson). He had the advice of the various ministers of the commonwealth whom he met in London. He had the advice of General Eisenhower and General Mark Clark, both of whom he met, and he had the advice of most of the western powers. Therefore, he statement that he made would be the generally accepted statement of the government. It does not do much good to try to make any suggestions contrary to that. But before we came up to Ottawa some four of us had a meeting with the members of the Canadian Legion. My colleague, the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Browne), the hon. member for Trinity-Conception (Mr. Stick) and the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Carter) and myself met with the members of the Canadian Legion and the whole matter was discussed. The matter of the brief that was submitted to the government was discussed. One remark that struck me very forcibly, as I am sure it did the other hon. members at that time, was this. We were talking with one of the officers in command of the reserves. There are three reserve regiments in Newfoundland. This commander had recently been up here. He said that in talking with his colleagues of the leserve regiments he was told by them that the Newfoundland reserve regiments were the best in Canada. The comment that he made, IVlr. Speaker, was this. It struck me so forcibly at the time. He said: "If we are the best, well, God help the rest of Canada". I am not pursuing that subject any further.
In connection with the defence committee, I must confess that the remarks of the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) were very interesting, because they corroborated exactly what the leader of the opposition

(Mr. Drew) had been asking for, for some time past. Coming from a former minister for air, from an hon. member who has had such opportunities as the hon. member has had, his remarks were indeed worthy of note. I know that my adding a request would not make any difference one way or the other.
We are all supposed to be cogs in this machine of parliament. If we are cogs in that machine we should at least be able to make an intelligent survey of what goes on. Frankly, so far as I am concerned in this defence expenditure picture, I do not feel I am any better than a piece of dust in one of the cog wheels. I believe that will be the feeling of most of us. I am merely going to say we should have that defence committee.
With regard to price controls, I am entirely in accord with the stand of my leader. Yesterday I listened carefully to the leader of the C.C.F. party (Mr. Coldwell), and I believe that his explanation was not too far away from the remarks of the leader of the opposition. With price control we must inevitably have wage control. As the leader of the C.C.F. party said, labour leaders are prepared to get around the board at any time and discuss wage control, provided that price control measures are taken. After all, we have to remember that in these days the labouring man is not the hewer of wood and the drawer of water that he used to be. He is equally well able to form judgments as any hon. member in this house. He knows the facts quite as well as we do, and if he finds it necessary to cut back his wages, then he will do so, provided always that he is getting a fair deal under price control.
With regard to the St. Lawrence seaway proposition, I must confess that I have two views on the matter. I am definitely in agreement with the need for it. As I recall it, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) said that it should be done by Canada alone, if necessary. I am entirely in accord with the idea that the seaway project should go through, with this provision, that Newfoundland and the maritime provinces generally should get some quid pro quo for it. After all, it is the ore that is coming out of Labrador that is going to go up that seaway. What are we in Newfoundland and the maritime provinces going to get for it? So far it looks only like skim milk, with the royalties and the work being provided. I do not in any way wish to condemn the possibility of the building of that 'seaway, but I do feel proper precautions should be taken whereby the province that has within its boundaries the greater portion of the ore will be reimbursed for the taking away of that ore. We must remember it is not a crop: once the ore
The Address-Mr. Higgins is extracted, it is gone. As I said, I have two views in the matter; I should like to see the seaway go through, but at the same time I cannot help feeling that in our part of the country we are being robbed to make a big iron industry in Canada and the United States.
The other matter upon which I wish to speak briefly concerns the statement of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson). With respect to him also I must confess that I was deeply impressed by the frank and free statement he made. Like some other members of the house I had the opportunity this year of being present at the United Nations, more in the capacity of an observer. While there I was extremely impressed by the minister's work. Like the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Decore) I feel the minister played an extremely important part in the consideration of decisions of the United Nations. Certainly it was most apparent that he was highly regarded by all those present at the meetings. My own observation was that all who were associated with the minister, particularly those who served in the capacity of delegates and alternate delegates, did an excellent job for Canada in every way. In that I include members of the House of Commons.
May I add further that the permanent staff from the Department of External Affairs who served at Lake Success are extremely capable in every way. The permanent head of the delegation, Mr. R. G. Riddell, is indeed doing a good job for Canada, and Canadians may be justly proud of the work of the department in that connection. This afternoon, replying to a question by the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), the Secretary of State for External Affairs commented upon the crossing of the 38th parallel. As I took down his words he said that Canada has not made any representations to the secretary general as a result of the British statement. He said further that the political significance of any new move is fully appreciated, and that any decision should be collective, including those countries participating.
The English view appears definitely to be that the 38th parallel should not be crossed at the present time. I must confess that is my view, and I trust that, having secured agreement in the cabinet, the Secretary of State for External Affairs may consider making active recommendations to the secretary general that the 38th parallel be not now crossed, until [DOT] further negotiations are proceeded with.
I remember when the matter was discussed, at Lake Success in October, the minister was far from happy in having to support
326	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Higgins the decision to cross the 38th parallel. I do hope we will feel he can make the recommendation which has been suggested at this time. I feel that voting to declare communist China an aggressor was the only course that could have been pursued, and I entirely agree with him in that respect.
There is one point in that connection to which I should like to refer. The chief advocate at that time for non-crossing and for not declaring China an aggressor was Sir Bene-gal Rau. Those who read the editorial which appeared in yesterday's issue of the Ottawa Journal must have been struck by the pertinent comments of the editor. It is headed "Strange Happenings in Korea-And in India", and states in part:
When UN, on February 1, was about to proclaim Red China an aggressor, India's Sir Benegal Rau, was instructed by Prime Minister Nehru to declare:
"I feel bound to mention that my government has been informed on the highest authority that once there is a condemnatory resolution there is no hope for a peaceful settlement." Sir Benegal Rau, in sepulchral tones, closed with a warning of "disaster."
What had India heard from Red China? According to a despatch from the correspondent of Newsweek in New Delhi, India had heard nothing to warrant Sir Benegal Rau's despair. He writes:
"A state department investigation in New Delhi and elsewhere failed to disclose any basis for these dire warnings. The inquiry discovered that the Chinese, in their messages to India, had been careful not to close the door to negotiations. They had not refused, as the Indians charged, to negotiate a cease-fire while the UN resolution was pending."
And then the editorial comment continues:
During UN's debates on the U.S. resolution much was heard of Panikkar, India's ambassador to Red China; he was the man supposedly keeping Nehru -and others-informed of what Mao Tse-Tung was thinking. Interesting to note, therefore, that (according to Newsweek's New Delhi correspondent) ambassador Panikkar's daughter, Miss Devaki Panikkar, was advertised recently in an Indian newspaper as "giving the lie to western slanderers of New China." Writing on New China's glories, apparently with the ambassador's approval, she said:
"I could not help thinking how much some of our ministers would profit by a course of intense training in the Marxist-Leninist theory."
Reading this, noting its source, some may wonder. Wonder if by some chance there may have been more than appeared on the surface in the notes which, during the debates at UN, came from Mr. Nehru's ambassador at Peiping-and more than appeared on the surface in Sir Benegal Rau's efforts to stop Red China being called an aggressor.
I think that we might very well have comments from the Secretary of State for External Affairs respecting that editorial; it is one which strikes me as very important.
The last matter to which I should like to refer is the suggestion contained in some news dispatches, and particularly a United Press dispatch of yesterday headed, "Soviet Stand Towards West May Soften; Opening


of Door to Discussions Indicated." The suggestion I presume is that at the forthcoming meeting of the foreign ministers of the big powers Russia is going to try again to produce some kind of peace movement.
The main item on the agenda is the rearming of western Germany. The discussion of this item is at the insistence of Russia. I trust that our minister of external affairs will use whatever influence he has to see to it that the Russian attitude is not allowed to eat too much into the vitals of the decisions that must be made by the foreign ministers. I listened carefully to the expose of communism by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Decore). As hon. members know, Lenin is the interpreter of the Marxian doctrines and is quoted frequently and reverently by Stalin. It was Lenin who disposed for all time of there being any question of friendly and lasting collaboration in a statement in the following words:
We are living not only in a state, but in a system of states, and the existence of the Soviet republic side by side with imperialist states for a long time is unthinkable. One or the other must triumph in the end. And before that end comes, a series of clashes between the Soviet republic and the bourgeois states is inevitable.
In commenting on diplomatic statements, Stalin made the following statement:
Words must have no relation to actions-otherwise what kind of diplomacy is it? Words are one thing, actions another. Good words are a mask for concealment of bad deeds. Sincere diplomacy is no more possible than dry water or wooden iron.
That is the man we have to depend upon to keep the peace of the world. As I see it, there is only one way in which the peace of the world can be kept, and this is in contradistinction to the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power). I still believe the United Nations has a part to play in keeping the peace of the world. If there is going to be a just and lasting peace the only way we can have it is by a true parliament of man, as the United Nations has been planned. In that parliament Canada must play her part.
There is only one way in which to meet the communists of the world, and that is with a big stick. It is to have that big stick ready that we in Canada are united today. No matter on what side of the house we sit or to what party we belong, I am sure that whatever sacrifices the government deem to be necessary will have the full support of everyone. All we want is to know what we are spending the money for and to see that it is properly spent. Once we have that, you can be certain that we as representatives of the people will speak with their voice when

The Address-Mr. A. F. Macdonald
we say, "All right, go right ahead, you have the highball. Carry on down the track."
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. A. F. Macdonald (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I trust you will permit me to add my congratulations to those already extended to the mover (Mr. McMillan) and seconder (Mr. Breton) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, on their apt presentation. Then may I say it affords me great pleasure to be associated in this house with my friend and colleague from Edmonton West (Mr. Prudham), who is to be congratulated upon his elevation to the portfolio of mines and technical surveys. His appointment is a compliment to his constituents and to the province of Alberta.
Today, Mr. Speaker, there is a feeling of urgency in our thoughts and in our affairs. It may well be that the requirements of national security rightfully deny us the opportunity of learning full details of the plans of the government. I feel, however, that this is a time for outspoken leadership, for a clear declaration of policy and a reaffirmation of our faith in democracy. Above all it is a time for an expression of confidence in the future of our Canadian brotherhood. Our people have been given a description of the duties and sacrifices of citizenship. We need not have the slightest fear that Canadians will not respond; our most recent history is proof of that. But it is of the essence of our way of life that the people must be kept fully informed. When our people know the need they will answer the call.
Over the years great social benefits have been obtained for our people, and these must not be endangered. We must provide full opportunity for individual self-expression. We must provide safeguards for the legitimate interests of each segment of our society. We must strive to guarantee our citizens a share of the national wealth so that at least minimum requirements and necessities of life will be secured to all, for herein are contained the fundamental tenets of Liberalism and the philosophy of the Liberal party. Canada has achieved an envied position in the eyes of many of the world's peoples. It is recognized for its constructive, deliberate and fair-minded search for social justice for the disabled, the underprivileged and the aged; for its emphasis on health, welfare and education, equal opportunity for all, and a steady approach toward the goal of full employment;
and for the productive capacity of its citizens. These are fine aims, which to a very considerable extent have been realized. To go further and attain a full measure of security will be difficult, the more so under our defence economy.
We plan to spend in the next few years in this country some $5 billion on national defence. We are all agreed on this stem necessity. We will seek by every means to assure that this money will be expended in such a way as to give us the maximum possible protection. When we consider what $5 billion would do for the aged, the ill-housed and the undernourished in our country, perhaps a truer measure of the cost of this great effort can be visualized. While this vast amount must be spent on preparedness, which is basically a non-productive purpose, I submit that we must yet continue to assure our people the goods, services and rights which are theirs by virtue of their citizenship and as a return for individual effort in the national interest.
Today we should be concentrating our energies on increasing our output of vital materials. Whatever restrictions may become necessary on the output of certain types of consumer goods, or on price and wage levels, these should go hand in hand with an urgent emphasis on the production of food, clothing and in fact all the necessities of life, and the full exploitation of our immense industrial potential. We are associated with many other countries in an effort to assure national security. In our own interests, as well as in accordance with high moral principles, we have undertaken to assist underprivileged nations elsewhere in the world. Increased production will not only help improve our own living standards but will help us meet those international commitments.
Increased production alone is not enough. There must be a proper distribution of the goods we produce. With this attained our people will be prepared for the physical and spiritual part they must play in the world today. To this end the social security measures instituted by our government can make a powerful contribution. In effect our unemployment insurance provisions are a means whereby a better distribution of purchasing power is afforded wage earners between periods of gainful employment. Family allowances are also a method of redistributing the national wealth between periods of lesser and greater family responsibility. Furthermore, the recommendations of the joint committee on old age security when implemented will go a long way toward bringing about a more equal distribution, and will tend to distribute the burden on the shoulders of all. With respect to the whole field of social
328	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. A. F. Macdonald security in this country I cannot do better than quote the words of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) as set forth by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) in his submission on old age security on March 10, 1950, as they appear at page 643 of Hansard:
One of our main domestic concerns is the provision of social security for all Canadians. The funds distributed under old age pensions, family allowances, pensions to the blind, health grants and other measures have also, in addition to the direct benefit received by the direct recipients of those amounts, added a strong upward influence in maintaining levels of employment. Our social security program is, as you know, by no means complete. We still have a good way to go before provision of social security in Canada reaches the level which will satisfy . . .
In actual fact all incapacity resulting from sickness and all disability due to age are a burden upon the national wealth, irrespective of the administering authority. It would be far better if these problems were made a governmental responsibility, though not necessarily of the federal administration. A sounder, more satisfied society would result from a proper allocation of expenditure in this regard. Both locally and nationally, through municipal, provincial and federal agencies, and through the devoted efforts of many fine service and charitable organizations, we have achieved a creditable record in the field of social service. Until such time as the world situation permits us to go forward with courage and with confidence towards the bringing into being of full security for all, we must participate to the full in any other means available.
There is, however, one factor which continues to be a sore spot and that is housing. Should we not be laying ever greater emphasis upon the provision of low-cost housing, and in fact of housing generally, to meet the still well-nigh insurmountable demand for living accommodation? Until the people of this country are adequately housed, there will be bad influences which will continue to wreak havoc with family life, and the economic pressure of sustained high rentals will continue its damaging effect on the standard of living. Rent is one expense which more frequently than not bears hardest on those least able to pay. The benefit of the fairest and best thought out plaps for social security will continue to fall short of even the minimum standards for which they are designed, so long as we are short of adequate housing at a price people can pay.
I have previously made reference to the work of voluntary organizations in connection with social welfare. To my mind, it is a question as to whether we are considering TMr. Macdonald (Edmonton East).]

the objectives and methods of these organizations as fully as we might to assist them in obtaining a greater degree of effectiveness in their objectives. After all, no one will deny that the greater the degree of voluntary social betterment the easier will be the task of the official government organizations in this field, and the more in keeping with our principles of self-determination in a free society. We have, I would think, gone a considerable way along the path of recognition of the importance of voluntary aid and organization in social service, as witness our association with the national physical fitness campaign, our national health grants, vocational training and many other projects. Much of the evidence considered by the committee on old age security consisted of submissions by voluntary social service organizations interested in this field. The incidence and development of mutual aid, friendly societies and charitable trusts is an outgrowth of many centuries of the democratic way of life, particularly in the English-speaking world. For my part I would like to feel that a comprehensive study would be made with a view to determining, in the light of present-day conditions, their full significance and value in helping to bring about the kind of social organization we in this country would like to see established.
At the present time a large measure of protection is afforded groups of employees against sickness, including hospital and medical expenses, through commercial insurance bodies. One example of this is the medical benefit plan recently instituted through the efforts of organized representatives of federal civil service associations. Moreover, in addition to the many plans sponsored by industrial concerns, whether instituted by management or by management co-operating with labour, there are large numbers of mutual benefit societies which are purely associations of employees, fraternal organizations, or social groups in which the economic factor is only part of their attraction.
There are, of course, a number of societies, some of them religious, many of them participants in the community chest, which do magnificent work in social aid and welfare. Special consideration with regard to taxation for purely charitable organizations is embodied in our legislation, though I am not familiar with the provisions concerning the related voluntary service organizations.
We all know the value of the labour-management production committees set up in industry under government auspices during

r>xx "
the war which had as their object increasing production and the ironing out of difficulties at the source. Might they not serve as the basis for the promotion of thrift, saving and co-dependency among employee groups not otherwise taken care of by collective bargaining agreements.
In the field of co-operative saving as distinct from the object of insurance, we have the phenomenal growth of the credit union movement. The most significant development has been in the province of Quebec where the caisses populaires have had their widest growth. However, in 1948, for all Canada, there were some 850 thousand Credit Union members with assets of more than $253 million.
The history of co-operative marketing in Canada would require a volume to unfold. Perhaps the western Canadian wheat pool enterprises are among the best known of this type, and their value to the western farmer, and in the long run to the general economy, has been magnificent.
At this time when we are concerned with reducing easy credit and the building up of our financial reserves to meet an emergency, I feel we should promote the development of these and similar organizations from the point of view of encouraging saving as a bulwark against temporary insecurity and unforeseen expenditure.
This country, Mr. Speaker, has been more fortunate than many in this modern world. It is due, in a great measure, to the comprehensive policies of this government that the war and its aftermath caused as little real dislocation and hardship as has been the case. The true value of these policies during the period of consolidation and restoration from the ravages of war will be seen when we face up to the difficulties that lie ahead.
We are fortunate, too, that in this country our people continue to exhibit those pioneering qualities which have brought about our present high degree of development. This process of development, particularly in its industrial aspects, is greater, actually and comparably, than at any previous time in our history. The requirements of modern living, and of the maintenance of a high standard of living in our complex society, demand far-reaching policies and methods to permit society to function freely. We realize the problem is complicated. It is a problem which is not personal or local or even national. Our problems are international.
We are fortunate in having such a highly regarded and brilliant Canadian as our Secrete	___,,c lur External Affairs (Mr. Pearson). We of this party hold no brief
The Address-Mr. A. F. Macdonald for the socialized state with its accent on regulation-nay, regimentation. We continue to adhere to the concept of a free society where individual'initiative and energy shall have full play; where faith in the essential goodness of the individual is maintained, but where nonetheless realistic understanding of human nature, and of the influence of economic and social pressures, forces the adoption of some degree of regulation of individual activity in the general interest.
We have faith in the direction of a government which carried us successfully through the second world war and the return to a peacetime economy. It will not fail us now in preparing and concerting those measures which will give us, we trust, the wherewithal to meet the future with confidence unshaken.
Nevertheless, I would like to see the expression of our faith in our country clearly asserted, forcibly set forth at this time. Perhaps, in that war weariness that seems to possess all peace-loving nations after conflict, we fail to apprehend the need for that eloquence which can personify the spiritual values in our civilization; to realize the need for clarity of expression akin to those outpourings of the human spirit which have heretofore inspired nations to heroic effort and endurance. In such fashion in our time the genius of Winston Churchill, of Franklin Roosevelt, glowed through their exhortations to their peoples. This quality was possessed in more humble, plainer-spoken fashion by the late great leader of the Liberal party, Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King, as it is by his successor, our revered Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent).
There is, I maintain, no scruple, no objection or no law which denies us the right to have confidence in ourselves and in our cause, nor yet the right to express the same in forthright fashion. Let there be, however, no delay. Let us act while we speak.


Mr. J. H. Dickey (Halifax):: In rising to take part in this debate, Mr. Speaker, I wish to join with all of those who have preceded me in congratulating most warmly the mover (Mr. McMillan) and the seconder (Mr. Breton) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. All of us realize the exacting nature of the task they had before them, particularly those of us who have had the privilege of a similar honour at the opening of previous sessions of this house. These two gentlemen certainly carried out their duties in a most creditable fashion, and they deserve the words of commendation which have been addressed to them by those who have taken part in this debate.
330	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Dickey
I also wish to join with the others who have expressed the appreciation that the members of this house feel of the manner in which you, Mr. Speaker, represented this house and this parliament at the opening of the new House of Commons in London. I am sure that the members of the mother of parliaments were pleased to know that this house, this spiritual offspring of that mother of parliaments, could send a man of such obvious dignity and distinction to represent us on such an occasion.
It has been made obvious, during the course of this debate, that the members of this house recognize full well the seriousness of the situation with which this country and the nations of the western world are now faced. I find it a little bit difficult to agree with the point of view expressed by some hon. members opposite, when they have said that one of the great needs is for this house to convince the people of Canada of the great seriousness of the present situation. I cannot speak for the whole country but in Nova Scotia generally and in Halifax in particular I feel that there is a full and deep realization of the problems with which we are faced and the serious nature of those that can be foreseen in the immediate future.
The people with whom I have spoken- and I have made it a point to speak with as many as possible-have shown an awareness of what the future may hold in store and a realization that Canada and her allies must do all in their power, first of all, to avoid war and, second, to make all necessary preparations for war if war must come. Because of my belief that there is this realization by the people of Canada of the realities of the present situation, I feel that the government and this parliament can trust the instinctive good sense and the courage of the Canadian people, and that we can feel assured that if we do the things we consider necessary to maintain peace and at the same time to prepare for whatever eventualities may be before us, we can proceed with confidence that the nation will respond to whatever demands have to be made upon it.
It is true, Mr. Speaker, that this country for a number of years past has been extremely fortunate. We have never experienced the real ravages of war- It is true that the price we had to pay in blood and treasure in two wars was bitter enough; but a kind Providence has always protected us from the actual onslaught of the enemy. Since the end of the second world war we have faced some difficulties, and we have had reason to complain of a number of inconveniences and troubles. But by and large, I think that our good fortune has continued. This morning I was greatly impressed by


a phrase that I read in a pamphlet put out by the Department of Agriculture. In discussing the question of the food situation in the world this pamphlet said that the per capita food supplies in most countries are still below the 1935-39 level. What a picture, Mr. Speaker, that draws for us in Canada, a country which has for some years past, I understand, enjoyed a per capita consumption of all the essential foodstuffs, and many that are not essential, that has been the highest in our history. I would direct attention to the fact that this is per capita consumption, not per capita supply. In spite of increases in prices which have been significant and serious enough, and have been one of our major causes for complaint over the last two or three years, the vast majority of Canadians have been in a position to increase their consumption of such a fundamental thing as food while other countries have been facing, an actual deficit situation with regard to supplies. I think also of the significance of the phrase "most countries." That does not just include the countries we have always regarded as being in a normal deficit position. It includes the majority if not all of the countries of western Europe which is the very cradle and birthplace of our civilization. It is not unreasonable to suppose that this good fortune to which we have become accustomed might have created a sense of complacency in the Canadian people; and this is probably the basis for the statements which have been made by hon. members opposite, and to which I referred. I may be wrong, but I am personally convinced that such is not the case. I am sure that no feeling of complacency exists among the Canadian people. In my humble estimation Canadian public opinion is alive to the dangers of the present situation, and the Canadian people are prepared for forthright action and leadership. Leadership by the government and by men in public life will find a ready and loyal response from a vast majority of all the Canadian people.
Our most important and essential activity at the present time is our struggle to keep the peace. This struggle to keep the peace is after all, by every possible means of comparison, our best and first line of defence. If the outbreak of a new war, which appears to loom more imminent day by day upon the horizon, can be prevented, the saving te humanity will be incalculable. We might just ask ourselves: can any price be too high to pay to ward off this terrible catastrophe of human suffering, waste and futility? I think the answer is that no price can be too high which leaves our honour unsullied and maintains our essential freedoms. The scene of this battle for peace is the difficult and complicated field of international relations.

During the recess of the special session I was one of the members who had the privilege of having a glimpse of this all-important side of Canadian policy during the fifth session of the general assembly of the United Nations. I hope that on another occasion it may be possible and appropriate for me to deal at greater length with the experiences which we all shared there. However, what I want to say tonight is that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) is making at a cost of prodigious labour and at the expense of tremendous energy a truly magnificent contribution to the strengthening of our vital first line of defence.
I have been particularly pleased to note, Mr. Speaker, the almost universal approval and esteem in which the Secretary of State for External Affairs is held by the people of this country. This is a second instance to which we can point in which public opinion in Canada is at the present time particularly sound and firm. However, I should like to point out to both his friends and his enemies, if he has any enemies, that behind the Secretary of State for External Affairs in all his actions and in the stands which he has so courageously taken in the name of his country is the solid backing of his colleagues in the cabinet, and particularly our great Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent).
The activity of second importance which we have before us in these days is that of our preparations for collective defence. Defence is such an essential matter that it is almost impossible to describe it as secondary to anything else. It is perhaps a paradox of our age that the only thing we can possibly regard as more important than the building up of the armies and armaments of ourselves and our allies is our equally strong and tenacious efforts to ensure that these arms and armaments will never be put to their intended use. However that may be, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) has outlined to the house the government's program calling for expenditures of $1,600 million this year as part of a $5 billion three-year program. I am sure that the announcement of this program in the house gave us all a very solemn thrill.
In his criticism of the defence program the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) saw fit to point out that under the rules and procedures of the house we are limited to the commitment by the government of $1,600 million. He appeared to set quite some store by that. Then, shortly afterwards, he turned around and admitted that it was perhaps very wise for the Minister of National Defence to disclose the whole program. It was particularly wise because I am quite sure that if he had not done so it would have been seized 80709-221
The Address-Mr. Dickey upon as another excuse for claiming that no information has been given on defence matters. I believe that this kind of criticism is, Mr. Speaker, a very clear indication to the house and to the country of a complete inability to discover any valid basis for criticism, and of satisfaction with the small kind of carping criticism that I have outlined.
My judgment of the temper of the Canadian people is that they are not inclined to question the amount or the size of our defence program; but they are-and I hope they will always be-very much inclined to question how the money is to be spent, and to make sure that it is spent in the best and the most economical way. With this in mind I am sure that a very vast majority of the people of Canada are greatly satisfied to know that by and large the members of the opposition have indicated their support not only for the broad basis, the broad lines of defence policy as outlined by the minister, but also for most of the details. This is a very reassuring situation from several points of view, as my colleagues will agree. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, there will be other opportunities for discussing very fully the details of the defence program and spending. I do not propose to make any more extended remarks on that subject this evening.
Last evening the debate in the house turned to the consideration largely of economic and financial policies. This, under present circumstances, is of course inseparably linked with our problems of defence and of meeting the costs of defence. I am sure that all hon. members and the public generally were very appreciative of the frank and able speech made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott). I think this house was expecting a clear statement from the minister on the steps being taken by the government to curb inflation, and, particularly in view of the widespread public interest in the question of controls, of the government's view on that very important matter. It is true that the cost of living is only a symptom of inflation; but it is a very painful symptom, one which touches every person in Canada and bears particularly heavily upon those least able to bear the burden. The C.C.F. subamendment to the address in reply deals with one of the suggested means-and in my view a very partial means-of meeting one of the problems relating to inflation. As I understood him, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) in his remarks last night supported, on behalf of his group, the C.C.F. subamendment. In fact, I understood him to say affirmatively that the C.C.F. subamendment was included in the amendment and that it was really only stating in words what was actually there in any event.
332	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Dickey
To me this conjures up a most interesting picture, an inviting picture I may say, that is quite apart from the obvious public interest in a statement of that kind. The picture I see is that of a student of political science a few years hence looking up the records of parliament-Hansard for the twentieth parliament-and reading the debates of the sessions from 1945 to 1949. He would read there the resounding speeches which one can almost hear still echoing in this hall, speeches of the then leader of the opposition, speeches of the then hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario, the present member for Greenwood (Mr. Mac-donnell); speeches of the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming); speeches of the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe); speeches of the then member for Broadview, of the hon. member for York West (Mr. Adamson), of the hon. member who then represented the constituency of Rosedale- to name only a few of them.
What was the burden of all those resounding speeches? It was the absolute and imperative necessity to get rid of each and every control that had been placed upon the Canadian economy during the war.


Mr. Noseworthy:: And the Liberals fell for it.


John Horace Dickey: My hon. friends are great people for diagnosing real troubles but never being able to do anything about them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Have you read what Graham Towers said?


John Horace Dickey: Then our student of political science turns to the records of the twenty-first parliament, and reading the debates of the session of 1951 he comes across the speech delivered last night by the leader of the opposition, and speeches of ten or twelve other hon. members opposite. What does he conclude from those? I am sure the only conclusion to which he could come would be that of confusion thrice confounded. I am quite sure there are very few members in the house, either on this side or in the ranks of the official opposition, who are quite sure whether or not the official opposition is supporting the C.C.F. subamendment because it is' for a system of over-all controls, including wage controls, or whether they- are supporting it because it is a system of selective controls specifically excluding wage controls.
I would say also to my hon. friends of the C.C.F. party that I think it would be well for them to outline pretty carefully the way in which they want the various opposing groups to interpret their subamendment, because the support of the Social Credit party has been offered to them on the distinct understanding that the C.C.F. subamendment means that


wage controls must be part of the program; and there is some suggestion of that kind in the speech delivered this afternoon by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. Higgins), and those of some others.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Wages are controlled already.


An hon. Member:: Rubbish.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This parliament passed a wage control bill last August.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


John Horace Dickey: Perhaps we could deal with that particular bit of ice-skating at some other time.
I turn now to some other aspects of the impact of our defence program on the Canadian economy. I should like to dwell with particular emphasis upon the necessity of the greatest possible attention being given to a decentralization of the new industry it will be found necessary to set up. I should like to place certain considerations before the government, and I do so most sincerely indeed.
I hope as the situation develops it will be found possible to take action along lines currently being suggested. It is quite obvious Canada is going to undertake a great industrial effort, and I think that the Canadian people are most anxious that that industrial effort be carried forward with the greatest possible effect and to the greatest possible extent.
This is the second time in a generation that Canada has embarked upon a program of this kind. We are going to try to do our bit, as one of the great arsenals of democracy; and the extreme ends of the country, east and west, are clamouring for an opportunity to play their proper part in this great effort. I wish to join with other voices raised in the house and in the other place-and may I say this is a regular broadside at the government, and we should not forget there is another place-outlining to the government the necessity for making some long-range plans for decentralization.
The hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Riley), the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) and a number of others speaking in the debate have brought this subject to the attention of the house. I venture to mention it again this evening because this matter has been the subject of very serious study and discussion by a number of groups of members for some months past. It is our intention to bring our views before the government as strongly as possible.
Hon. members will recall the situation that faced us in 1939. With very little warning

we were involved in an all-out war with a very serious opponent; and for some considerable time we, as part of the commonwealth, fought almost alone. It was therefore a situation where speed was of the essence in our industrial mobilization. Because of the economic difficulties which immediately preceded the outbreak of war, there was a pool of labour available in the industrialized portions of the country, and that pool of labour was a skilled pool. I think there were very good reasons why those advantages had to be taken into consideration and used. The result was a serious concentration of industrial development in the central part of the country. Perhaps it is unnecessary for me to say that I was not a member of this house at the time, but I well remember the representations that were made repeatedly to the government by maritime and other members early in the war and throughout the war pointing out the situation which was growing up and which eventually became a fait accompli.
The situation is now quite different. Canada is enjoying a very buoyant economy, a situation which is described as full employment. To say that there is full employment reminds me a little of something said in "Animal Farm". It was discovered that there was a saying among animals that all were created equal, but some of the animals were more equal than others. Canada is enjoying full employment, but some parts of Canada are enjoying fuller employment than others.
One place where there is a ready pool of labour is in the maritimes and eastern Canada. There exists there a pool of workmen possessing great ability and great adaptability ready for recruitment. They are not all by any means unemployed; many of them are employed but in positions which do not give full scope to their abilities. A great deal could be accomplished by a reallocation of labour. We have there great resources in the way of steel, coal and other raw materials. We have also a great advantage in our geographic position. We have immediate access to tidewater twelve months in the year, and that is of great advantage in the present situation. I submit to the government that these are compelling reasons for giving consideration to these factors when industrial expansion is being carried out.
The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) has warned the house and the country that a danger of direct attack exists. That was not so in the last war except for some danger from shelling from the sea. The situation in Canada today indicates that consideration should be given to the dispersal
The Address-Mr. Dickey of industry in order to avoid the possibility of our industry being completely hampered by one or a series of aerial raids.
Another consideration which should not be lost sight of is the advantages which accrue to the economy of an area in which industrial; mobilization takes place. I think we all recognize the importance of ensuring as much as possible the equal development of all sections of the country. It is impossible for one section of the country to enjoy great prosperity if other sections are not in a similarly favoured position. The advantages to the economy are of two kinds. First is the direct advantage of the employment created in an area by war production. Second is the much more important advantage derived from the availability of the plants which have been created for defence needs when those needs have passed. This availability was the basis of the great peacetime expansion of industry which occurred in central Canada during the five post-war years. This has been the experience in the past and I am sure that in the future when the need for defence industries will have passed as we hope it will, the stage will be set for a further industrial expansion for peacetime purposes. I submit that it would be of inestimable value to Canada if a large proportion of. that peacetime expansion were to take place in the maritimes and the western parts of Canada.
I should like to attempt to drive home my points, and to do this I should like to cite one example which I think will show exactly what I have been trying to point out. During the last war an aircraft repair plant was constructed at Eastern Passage with government assistance. That plant was operated during the war by the Clarke-Ruse Aircraft Company. After its usefulness for that purpose had passed, the plant became vacant and remained so for some time. Through the co-operation of the provincial and federal governments the Fairey Aviation Company of England acquired the plant about two and a half years ago and this establishment is now a thriving industry which is literally bursting at the seams. It is making an indispensable contribution to the economy of that particular section of Nova Scotia. In addition this plant is carrying out repair and conversion work on naval aircraft with an efficiency and economy that I know is a source of considerable satisfaction to the officers of the Department of National Defence.
That is an example of what has occurred over and over again in connection with defence plants that were constructed in central Canada during the war. I appeal to the.

The Address-Division
Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) and to the government generally to consider the case, which has been made by other speakers much better than I can present it, and to give every possible assistance in the process of the decentralization of our defence industry.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment to the amendment lost. The question is on the amendment.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, when I took part in the debate on the second or third day of the present session, I said little about the defence of our country because at that time I did not wish to attempt to criticize the government's policy without having their program in front of me so that I could give it careful consideration. That program has now been presented to us, and since it was presented to us by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and various of his ministers a number of members on both sides of the house have in their speeches amplified the information. As a result, we now feel that we are quite capable of assessing the whole program and of deciding for ourselves whether or not it is adequate. We feel that in some measure at least we can give support to what the government has proposed as its program for meeting the situation

that confronts us today. As a matter of fact, I suppose with a great many of the things they propose we can find ourselves in complete agreement.
I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if it would be possible to have more order in the chamber.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Solon Earl Low: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It was hard enough for me to hear myself, let alone to have others hear. I of course realize that hon. members think they are not missing much, and I do not blame them, at this stage of the game. But at the same time I have something to say that may prove to be of interest to one or two people anyway, and they are entitled to hear. There is freedom of speech in our country. I think there is something that is equally important, and that is freedom to be heard. All too often that freedom is overlooked in this house.
The government's program calls for the spending of $5 billion for defence in the next three years. We know that Canada will have to spend a great deal of money if it is to get ready to meet the dangers that we see about us. We know that if we are to prepare ourselves adequately it will cost us a great deal of money. But it seems to me that altogether too much emphasis has been placed upon the amount we are going to spend and far too little on the details of the ways in which we are going to spend the money.
I cannot help feeling that a good many who have spoken in this debate have been of the opinion that just because we were going to spend $5 billion in three years, which means about $1,600 million a year, that was all it was going to take. But anyone with a lick of sense knows that is not so. It is not how much money we spend that is going to count. In the end, it will be the wisdom with which that money has been spent that will tell the story. We think that anything less than the amount that has been proposed to be spent in the next three years would certainly not be enough. When I say that altogether too much emphasis has been placed on telling the world how much we are going to spend in our budget for defence purposes in the next three years, I do not mean to imply that we expect the government to talk too much about the details of their plans. But what I do suggest, Mr. Speaker, is that those of us who are in this house, and observant and intelligent people throughout the country who are able to see what the government is doing, should judge for themselves whether or not the action that is supposed to go along with $5 billion of spending is wise action. Quite frankly I cannot begin to see that the government is moving along a line of action that
The Address-Mr. Low will prepare Canada, and ensure that we can make an optimum effort-perhaps I had better say the maximum effort of which we are capable-to defend ourselves.
I quite agree, too, Mr. Speaker, that in our defensive effort the main emphasis ought to be placed upon air power. I think the hon. member for Quebc South (Mr. Power) made a notable contribution to the debate. I read it with very keen interest, because I felt that the hon. member knew the situation and knew what he was talking about. I certainly feel in agreement with him that our main effort ought to be in the realm of the air. Certainly the Canadian people seem to me peculiarly adapted to aerial activity, aerial warfare. I think, too, that Canada should emphasize the strengthening of her navy. That is something with which we agree.
I agree that a country as large as ours and as blessed with resources, natural resources, but with a very small manpower such as we have, must measure its contribution more in terms of material than manpower. When I say "measure its contribution more in terms of material than manpower," I mean by that the contribution which we make to the defence of Europe or of any other country outside Canada. I hope that I can make that particularly clear because it is important to the case which I want to make.
Certainly, if war should come upon us again-I am one of those in the house who have expressed the hope that it will not come again-if it should come we do not want to make the same mistake that was made in world war II, when we practically bled our country white of manpower and put ourselves into an almost impossible position with respect to reinforcements when reinforcements were needed. We ought to be careful not to bite off more than we can chew in any effort that we do have to make to fulfil our commitments under the Atlantic pact.
As I listened to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) last night describe the steps that his government expects to take to cushion our economy against further inflation, I thought that he was very forthright and perfectly sound in so far as his description of those steps related to the orthodox system that he persists in following. I could agree with him perfectly if I could make myself believe that he simply has to stay within the old accepted orthodox financial policies; but, Mr. Speaker, I have to criticize the Minister of Finance and the government very severely for their stubborn refusal to make use of subsidies for what I consider today are two most urgent purposes. One of these purposes is to encourage production of those things of which we have

The Address-Mr. Low an insufficient supply in our country, and the lack of which may make us weaker in our effort to prepare.
The second of those purposes is of course to mitigate to some extent the terrible effects of the very high cost of living. The government could have helped immeasurably, through a wise use of subsidies over these past two or three years.
I quite agree with what the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) said last night in that respect, and I do not need to repeat it because he said exactly what I think. I also feel very critical of the failure of the finance minister to use the Bank of Canada as it should have been used over these years. Ever since 1935 the government has refused stubbornly to make use of the Bank of Canada to regulate the supply of money in this country at a level of balance with the goods and services that were there to be purchased, and as a result of the failure we have gone on to a condition of inflation that simply need not be.
When the Minister of Finance jumped on the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Mac-donnell) I thought that he did not quite know what the hon. member for Greenwood had said. I am in agreement with the hon. member for Greenwood- when he says that the Bank of Canada could have exercised an overall supervision of banking in this country to the extent that we would not have today such a terrible inflationary condition.


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: He did not
know what the Bank of Canada had been doing either.


Solon Earl Low: That is perfectly correct. When the Minister of Finance says that the Bank of Canada cannot do that of course he is perfectly right unless and until this government supplies it with a policy under which it will operate. What we are asking the government to do is to supply it with that policy. It seems to me that one of the most important things we have to do if we are to prevent a recurrence of this sort of inflationary condition in the years to come, and established as a result of an all-out effort for defence, is to put the banking system of this country on a 100 per cent reserve basis.
I do not see any other way by which we can ensure that the country will not be flooded with inflation time and time again.
I do not know but I do not believe that the hon. member for Greenwood believes that.
I am not suggesting for one moment that he is joining me in making that proposal, but I will say this: that coupled with a program of that type it would become necessary for the Bank of Canada to get a money provision to supply the government with whatever


money it requires at any time to augment the supply that is in the country at the present time for making available to the people goods and services that are there for them to buy. When that is done, and only when it is done, can we ever hope to cope with the inflationary dangers that arise out of lack of regulation of the money supply such as we have today.
We feel that the present financial policy of the government, a policy which has caused disaster time after time down through history, has brought us to the brink of complete break-down more times than one can speak about in the short time that he has in this debate. It seems surprising to me that we continue to believe or hope that that same system will bring us through other dangers such as those we have passed through, without causing a break-down. It is just impossible for it to do so, and we cannot hope for an all:out effort, we cannot hope particularly for an effort of preparedness that will spread the sacrifices over the population of Canada in anything like equality until we do have a sound and sane approach to the policy of finance.
I said there are many things with which we can agree in the government's program, but we do deplore the fact that the government has failed to take appropriate steps to ensure a greater measure of equality of sacrifice and service in their program of preparedness.
When the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) spoke in the debate he expressed his conviction that we were living in a time of emergency, a time of grave danger. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), speaking in Montreal just a day or two ago before a delegation of the Canadian Lumbermen's Association meeting at the Mount Royal hotel, is reported in these words in the Montreal Gazette of today:
The behaviour of the Soviet union and its allies and satellites in the last six months has shown that they are more prepared than we had previously estimated to take risks which may lead to a third world war. For that reason there is no escaping the conclusion that we must arm ourselves and quickly, and assist our allies to arm. We must accept that necessity.
I emphasize the words, "that we must arm ourselves, and quickly". I accept that; I agree. But I am asking the government this question: Where is their program that arms us so quickly? That is the whole, the nub, of the situation now. Where is that program?
I have not seen any, and they certainly have not given evidence, so far as they have divulged their program to the house and country, that they have a program that will make it possible for us to arm quickly. I assume in the absence of it that there is no such program.

I must say I have not been able to find very much urgency in the government's proposals thus far. In the debate to date it seems to me we have spoken as if most, if not all, the causes of world chaos stem from Russia. Consequently there seems to be an attitude that all we have to do is to build a wall against Russia.
Let me emphasize once more, as I did when I spoke before in the debate, that there are deeper things to be concerned about- deeper things. What we have to be concerned about is this: What is it that made a bolshevik Russia; what is it that made Russian imperialism, and made those things possible? They are results, not causes.
It seems to me we must be aware of the forces that have caused the growth of a bolshevik Russia, and made her strong and a menace now to the world. World chaos today stems from attempts in practically all the democracies to build upon decadent systems and wrong principles. What we have to do is to set out to change those wrong principles to right ones, to do away with decadent systems -financial, economic and otherwise-and try to build our democracies on sound and solid rock.
If we do that we can abolish the things that have caused Russian imperialism and the spread of the evil doctrine of communism throughout practically all the countries of the world. True, we have to build some sort of wall now, and it is very urgent that we get that wall built. At the same time however we should be concentrating considerable attention upon the weaknesses in our own way of doing things that have given rise to these evils which now menace us.
I have listened to the speeches and examined them all but, as I said, I have not seen any evidence in the government's program that would ensure equality of sacrifice in the things we have to do. In all the debate I have gained the impression that there has been altogether too much pussyfooting on the matter of manpower. I do not think there is any question about it at all. There has been a lot of skating around, and a lot of shying away and soft pedalling the business of manpower. I think about the only man in the house who spoke true to his convictions, and boldly, was the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank). He let us know exactly where he stood, and made certain proposals to which I think it would be wise for the government to pay heed.
Let me deal for a moment with this question of manpower. There is no question about the fact that if we are going to make the maximum effort in our own defence, and if we are going to fulfil our obligations in
The Address-Mr. Low any regional pacts to which we have given our allegiance, then we have got to make the wisest possible use of the manpower within Canada. As I have already said, I am convinced that our greatest contribution to any external effort, wherever that may be, will be in materials, not masses of manpower. Because our country, big as it is and wealthy as it is, has a small population. Let us lay that down first and foremost, and definitely.
But on the other hand I do not think the government can possibly begin to make preparations it ought to make without carrying on immediately a national registration. We are calling for a national registration just as fast as the government can get at it. We feel that not only will Canada need to know where its available manpower is, what kind of manpower is available and of what type, but it will also need to have a well trained citizenry ready to take the offensive in any danger that threatens our country. And the only way we can have that is to have compulsory training of our Canadian people for home defence. We are calling for the compulsory military training of our Canadian people in readiness for anything that menaces our shores or our land. At the same time that we are calling for national registration and compulsory service for training our citizenry so that they can be ready and so that they will know how to do things, we think every community in Canada ought to have a well-trained group, small though it may be, with sufficient equipment so that they may know how to use it, and not only how to use it but be prepared to use it in case things do happen making it necessary.
I know isolated parts of our country where it would be the simplest thing in the world for an enemy to drop airborne troops. Who says they may not attempt to do such a thing? Certainly we are not so isolated that that could not happen, if Russia decided it would be wise to get hold of certain areas within this vast country, from which to launch, let us say, rockets with warheads composed of atomic machinery of some sort. How far would we be able to take care of a situation like that under present circumstances? It would not take much of an airborne force to cut communications and transportation in certain vital parts of our country and thus render us impotent. There is only one way to deal with a situation like that, and that is1 to set out now to build up a reserve force in Canada which will be indeed a reserve force, something of which we can be proud and under which we can feel some security. [DOT]
We have got to begin-it should have been done long ago-to train leadership, those

The Address-Mr. Low who can train and take the lead in every community in Canada in putting our people through the type of training they require. Where is that program now? Has the government something like that? If so, why has it not been presented? I suggest it is because they are afraid to present it.
We feel that while we are attempting to prepare ourselves adequately with respect to the proper distribution of manpower and the preparation of a well-trained citizenry in home defence we ought to be trying to organize our financial and economic preparedness so that they will guarantee that in everything we have to do there will be equality of sacrifice for our people. I do not think it is fair for the government to expect to go on through this emergency as they went on through world war II, and again further back through world war I, expecting the people of this country to make an all-out effort to build equipment and provide materials for an all-out war, to supply an army that will be a credit to the country and guarantee that the forces of right will be victorious; to expect them to make supreme sacrifices, in many cases to give limbs and eyes and other parts of their bodies in this great effort; to pay for the war in that way and then when the whole thing is over to come back and have to pay for it again two or three times. That is not right or just, but that is what has happened. That has been the effect of our financial approach to this business of war and defence.
There must be a change. How many of our boys who went over in world war I and world war II came back and said, "We thought we had paid for the war with our *efforts." But then they were taxed to the very last cent they had and kicked out. As one of my colleagues has said, they were allowed to languish without decent jobs or .any form of security during the thirties. That was the result because we did not have the gumption to lay down a financial and economic system that would make it unnecessary for those fellows to pay through the nose and in *every other way and then come back and pay for it again with dollars and cents.
We also call for an all-out organization that will make it possible for us to defend ourselves and to help other countries that require our materials to defend themselves. The strongest possible Canada should be the slogan. Canada should be able to do her utmost. We have thought, along with many other speakers, that in the industrial effort that is to be made due consideration must be given to the claims of western Canada and the maritime provinces for industrialization. I listened last night to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Gibson) and I must say


that he made a very good speech and offered some practical and forthright suggestions.
One of the things that he asked me to do was to try to get the province of Alberta to make available to the Pacific coast part of the gas being found in that province so that the people down there may also be able to make an effort. I appreciate very much the suggestion and request he made, but if 1 were to ask the hon. member for Comox-Alberni to send to Alberta about two-thirds of the logs that he cuts so that they might be manufactured into finished lumber, I wonder what attitude he would take? I do not think he would look on it with very much interest.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Timber.


Solon Earl Low: I should like to point out that the province of Alberta set up a commission to study the whole matter of reserves of gas. That commission gave the most earnest consideration for quite a long time to this matter. If there is one thing we try to do out there it is this: When we set up a royal commission and that commission makes its report we do not like to be like so many other governments I could name and not do anything about it. We feel that if we have confidence in the personnel of a commission when it is set up we ought to be ready to accept their ' advice when they make their report.
That is exactly what we are trying to do in Alberta. For the benefit of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni I should like to quote from the report of the board as follows:
The board finds that Alberta's present established gas reserves are approximately equal to the amount of gas the board estimates is necessary to ensure the present and future requirements of the province and accordingly recommends that these reserves should be further increased before the export of gas is approved.
There may be differences of opinion about the extent of the gas reserves, but that is the considered opinion of the board experts who studied the whole thing, and who heard all the evidence that anybody wanted to present. When that report was presented the Alberta government decided in its wisdom that the best thing to do was not to give any permits for the export of gas from the province until further reserves were made available.
I understand that Mr. Manning's government has laid down a policy of inducements to private enterprise to come into the province, to make an all-out effort to find further gas reserves and to see that those are made available as quickly as possible. I say to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni that if by this autumn those gas reserves have been augmented sufficiently I feel satisfied that

the province of Alberta will then give its consent to the export of gas to those areas that require it for an all-out defence effort.
At the time the Alberta government made this announcement with respect to the gas reserves Mr. Manning announced that if in the meantime, that is between now and September next, the government of Canada feels that it is necessary to have gas in order to make an all-out effort for our defence, all they have to do is to ask and they will get it. That statement was made by Mr. Manning just a short time ago.
There is one other thing I should like to mention. Just after the close of the last war the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), speaking in this house, criticized the Alberta government for not taking advantage of all the things it could have taken advantage of at the time to industrialize or increase its industrialization. If I am misquoting the right hon. minister I want to be corrected.


Mr. Gardiner:: That is correct.


Solon Earl Low: That is what the minister said. I do not agree with his criticism. I did not at the time and I think I said so. But badly as we need industrialization to balance our economy in Alberta, certainly it would be unwise and foolish in the extreme for us to send out of our province the materials and power we need to industrialize. So we say let us take some of the industrial effort out there. I have already suggested that we make an effort to set up steel manufacturing right at our own coal beds, and I think it can be done. I believe it would be in the interests of this country to do so. Certainly we will need the gas and other things that come from oil production if we are to have industrialization.
Because I have not seen any evidence, in what the government has proposed to us thus far, that the government has in mind an all-out effort, because I think we agree with practically every principle laid down in the Progressive Conservative amendment but we believe it does not go far enough, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw):
That the amendment be amended by adding thereto the following as clause 4:
4. To ensure that a complete program of preparedness including compulsory training in the reserve forces for home defence be executed with the greatest possible degree of equality of sacrifice and service.
Just to make absolutely clear what we are calling for, let me take a moment or two to review. Our amendment calls for a financial organization which will provide a guarantee
The Address-Mr. Kickham to all the Canadian people that there will be equality of sacrifice, as far as that can be achieved, in anything we have to do to defend our country and to assist other countries to defend themselves. Our amendment would call for an industrial organization for all-out defence production which would build Canada into the strongest possible country. Our amendment calls for a well-trained citizenry ready and equipped to defend Canada. We feel that only by following the terms of that amendment can Canada hope to make the effort that will devolve upon her in the next few months.


Mr. T. J. Kickham (Kings):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate I wish first to join in the expressions of sympathy tendered to the families of the late J. L. Douglas and J. E. Matthews. Of Mr. Douglas I can say, as the hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacNaught) said, that he ever extended a kind, sympathetic and helpful hand. In my close personal association with him I found him always putting forth ardent efforts for the welfare of his constituency and the province he loved.
I should like to make a few comments on the railway strike of last year. We in our province were severely affected by that strike, because of our insular position. The terms of union guaranteed us unbroken transport communication. The federal government placed in the hands of the Canadian National management the operation of the ferry boats connecting Prince Edward Island with the mainland. When the railway strike was called the two ferries operating were tied up at the docks. After frantic negotiation carried on by Premier Jones, the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier), the spokesman for the railway union, Mr. Hall, finally condescended to permit one ferry to operate until the strikers went back to work. It seems to me that we have arrived at a critical stage in the economic life of our province when the leaders of labour unions can practically abrogate the terms of confederation which we took as a sacred trust to assure our province continuous transport communication with the mainland. This matter deserves the most serious consideration by the government. Measures must be taken now to see that a similar situation does not occur in future. It should be borne in mind that the people of Canada are the owners of the Canadian National. They vested power in the government to operate the railway and the government in turn passed on the duty of management to the officials of the railway. The goods carried by our railroads result from the industrial efforts and endeavours of the people; therefore when

The Address

Mr. Kickham the employees of the people refused to carry these goods it was a case of the tail wagging the dog.
Coming from a province where the people are largely producers of agricultural products, fish and pulpwood, naturally I have some comments to offer on our industries. Potatoes, our principal farm cash crop, have been terribly disappointing to the growers for the past two seasons because of depressed market conditions in the United States. The real cause of these market conditions, I believe, is the action of the United States government in assuring minimum price support for their growers. That, of course, is their right, but it has had a depressing effect upon market values in Canada.
The continuous increase in freight rates has also had an adverse effect upon our potato industry. At times the railway receives more for a bag of potatoes than does the grower. At the present market price per bag the railway is splitting with the grower on a fifty-fifty basis. If the board of transport commissioners would grant the maritime potato industry preferential freight tariffs it would be of great assistance in eliminating distress. Assistance similar to that given the western grain growers in marketing feed grain in eastern Canada and the maritimes, which is also of great benefit to the farmers of eastern Canada, should be implemented to assist our potato industry.
In our fishing industry, last season the lobster catch was very good. We had strong markets with satisfactory prices, especially for the fresh market catch. On the other hand the prices for hake and cod were disappointingly low, only two to two and a half cents per pound for the green fish. Efforts are now being made by the departments of fisheries, both federal and provincial, to assist the industry in the operation of draggers of a lesser tonnage than now receive assistance. Other matters of concern to the fishermen in the field of packing and processing the by-products are also under consideration. In this industry there is great need for improvements which, when put into effect, will be of the greatest assistance.
I should like to support the request of the hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Riley) for the decentralization of war industry whenever that can be effected. Premier Frost of Ontario has referred to the problems created by the centralization of war industries in already crowded cities and municipalities, in connection with housing, and so on. In the maritimes, where some war industries could be established, the workers already have their homes and other facilities for home life, thus eliminating the housing problems which must be faced in concentrated

areas. The distribution of war industries over wider areas is also an important defence factor.
I notice a trend of thought permeating some members' speeches to the effect that Canada has an obligation to assist east Asian countries, technically and economically. While this may be without question a worthy objective during a time when the gross national production of Canada has climbed to over $17 billion in 1950, indicating a boom condition in most of Canada, no such economic condition exists in the maritimes. Caution should be exercised against too great exuberance, because these may turn out to be but temporary economic conditions. In this respect we should remind ourselves of the old adage that charity begins at home. This provokes the thought that the maritime provinces could avail themselves of surplus federal capital to great advantage in many fields. For example, it would be an advantage to the farmers in our province, the producers of poultry, eggs, dairy and beef cattle, hogs, potatoes and fish. Western feed wheat now costs $4.25 per hundredweight. If the government, through some medium such as subsidies, laid down this low-grade wheat and other grains in the maritimes at $2 per hundredweight, it would stimulate the production of these products. This would ultimately lead to lower costs for the consumers, and would enable the western farmers to market low-grade wheat and other grains here in Canada. There is also an urgent need for financial assistance to the fishing industry.
There is another group of citizens who are continually asking for assistance, namely our war veterans of the past two wars. They are requesting pensions, veterans' allowances and widows' allowances. The Department of Veterans Affairs apparently has not now the authority to satisfy many claims that appear to be justified. In this connection, I am pleased1 to note that amending legislation will be introduced at this session, as indicated in the speech from the throne, for the purpose of reaching veterans who are now beyond the scope of this legislation. All in all, there are numerous fields in Canada in which capital investment would be rewarding.
Many people who have practised prudence and frugality all their lives, and who contributed through direct and indirect taxes to the treasury of the dominion government, about which they have not complained, are now protesting over the arbitrary and exacting decisions of the income tax branch. I do not think they would take too kindly to having their money given to Asian countries, either as risk capital or in other ways.
In conclusion, I should like to urge upon the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) the

The Address-Mr. Shaw
necessity of providing winter boat service between the port of Georgetown, in Prince Edward Island, and Pictou, Nova Scotia, after the two ferry boats servicing the route between Wood island and Caribou are forced to discontinue because of ice conditions in Northumberland strait. Premier Jones has pointed out that the ferry boat Prince Edward Island is idle during the winter months, and would be suitable to continue this service. Since the distance is only thirty-eight miles the boat could make one round trip per day, thus enabling our shippers and others to carry on regular business relations.


Mr. F. D. Shaw (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, when concluding his remarks in this house on February 1, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) moved an amendment. That amendment read as follows:
That the following words be added to the address:
"We regret that Your Excellency's advisers have failed
(1)	to give this nation leadership in the face of the present grave danger; and
(2)	to bring into being forces necessary to enable Canada to defend itself and discharge its international obligations; and
(3)	to take effective measures to combat inflation and the rapidly rising cost of living.
As my leader indicated a few moments ago, we found nothing to complain about so far as that amendment was concerned, except that in our opinion it did not go far enough. Accordingly, he moved an amendment to the amendment as clause 4:
To ensure that a complete program of preparedness including compulsory training in the reserve forces for home defence be executed with the greatest possible degree of equality of sacrifice and service.
Mr. Speaker, in seconding that amendment I agree wholeheartedly with all of the observations made by my leader. In essence we are asking the members of this house to endorse the Canadian Legion's program for total preparedness. With certain very notable exceptions this debate, Mr. Speaker, has been characterized by brevity, and I shall make an effort to keep my remarks particularly brief.
Before continuing, I should like to congratulate the mover (Mr. McMillan) and seconder (Mr. Breton) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. As indicated by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) some days ago, one's first speech in this house is a rather trying experience. It is more trying when the speakers are new to the house, particularly when they have come to parliament via the by-election route. In my opinion the two hon. members acquitted themselves in a commendable fashion.
The discussion during this debate thus far has, quite naturally and quite properly, revolved around the extremely critical international situation, and the acute danger which confronts all free democracies including our own. His Excellency's address referred specifically to the deterioration in the international situation, and to the menace in the Far East which reinforces the mounting evidence that communist imperialism is determined to dominate the world by force or by fear of force. Quite apart, Mr. Speaker, from anything that was said in His Excellency's address, and quite apart from anything which has transpired since mid-June, there has certainly been ample evidence to convince anyone who is open to conviction that communist imperialism has set as its ultimate objective the complete domination of the free, democratic world of which we are a part.
As indicated yesterday by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis), all one has to do is go back to the communist manifesto itself to learn to one's own satisfaction what that goal is. He indicated that in the manifesto itself it is stated for all to see that their belief and conviction is that communism-call it by any particular name you like-and capitalism, so-called, cannot live side by side in the same world. Subsequent actions and declarations on the part of communist leaders have certainly provided clear evidence that, right from the date of that communist manifesto, there has been no departure whatsoever from that avowed purpose.
I often say to myself that communism has become the greater menace because communists everywhere know exactly what they want. They are united in that purpose of complete domination and enslavement of the free world. Unfortunately there were all too many who, down through the years, could not or would not comprehend the significance of what has taken place in certain European countries. We think of Hungary, Roumania, Czechoslovakia and so on. In all parts of the free world, including our own country, there were people who gave evidence of simply closing their eyes to what had taken place. Tragically there have been altogether too many who have not seen, and have not been willing to see, what has taken place right in our own country.
It is not too long ago that some of us who kept repeatedly referring to the growth ol the communist party in this country and the dangers of communism were told that we were just looking for bogeys in clothes cupboards. If the truth were known today, Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that the members

The Address-Mr. Shaw of this house and the people of this country would be shocked at the numerical strength, if 1 may put it that way, of the communists within our own nation. I realize fully that it is probably not possible to advise this house and the country of the counterespionage activities which have been under way. I realize that in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police we have an agency which, limited by its strength, has been doing excellent work in this field. But if there are in the neighbourhood of 20,000 or 22,000 card-carrying communists, and if there are 8 to 10 sympathizers for each of that number, surely we know what could happen overnight within this nation should Russia decide to move forward in the next step toward world conquest. Realizing that danger, and realizing how ill prepared we are today to meet that menace within our own country, does it not become absolutely essential that within Canada we establish among our people a type of organization by means of which our people shall be trained and equipped to meet not only what may come flying over the ocean but what can occur right within our own country? It is that consideration more than anything else which governs my thinking and which motivates me when I refer to the necessity of placing our Canadians in a position where they will know what to do and how to do it, and will be equipped to do it, if a situation of that kind develops. Let us not pass off too lightly that word "if." I have great confidence not only in the willingness but in the eagerness of our people to be prepared, to be trained and to be equipped to meet whatever may happen in our own country.
As was stated by my leader, Mr. Speaker, we regret many of the things that have taken place in the past. For example, we regret that it is only at this rather late date that we talk of the Colombo plan and of rendering technical assistance to the unfortunate peoples of certain other lands. It is most regrettable that that has not been our avowed policy down through the past many years. Is it any wonder that in certain parts of the world constantly hungry people have been swayed, have had their affections alienated and have turned their eyes away from countries like our own which were capable of doing so much to help them in their affliction? I think of our trade policies and our failure to understand that there cannot be peace with the "haves" and the "have nots" endeavouring to live side by side. I deplore certain of our policies; but being a realist I hope I am not unmindful of the great urgency that exists in connection with the necessity of building up a strong defence wall around our own country. We hope it will not be soon; in fact, we hope

that it will never occur; but let us govern our actions with the thought foremost in our minds that it may be soon when a ruthless and unprincipled enemy may be hammering at that defence wall. Let us also bear firmly in mind the fact that, as I said earlier, it will not be purely a matter of the enemy being without that wall; there will be an enemy within-alert, ready and trained-to unlock the gates of that wall; and the password is "sabotage." Do not mistake the truth of that statement. As I said a moment ago, we have a big job to do quite apart from defence. We have a job to do in winning back the affections of many of those people elsewhere in the world who have turned away from us.
This amendment of ours, Mr. Speaker, called for that training and that preparedness which is so essential; but it also referred to that question of the greatest possible degree of equality of service and sacrifice. When the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) spoke with respect to the manpower question a great many thoughts went through my mind, as they always do when manpower in relation to war, or to defence, is mentioned. My mind goes back to some of the things mentioned by my leader tonight. Some may assume that in the past we have enjoyed the highest possible degree of service and of sacrifice, but surely that was not so. Thousands of our boys joined the various branches of the armed services and went out of Canada. Many of them left their wives and children. They passed the whole of the war in distant battlefields, or in the skies# over the battlefields, or on the sea. They came back, and, as indicated by my leader, they were faced with the unhappy and extremely deplorable situation of the colossal debt. The thought constantly went through their minds what the acting minister of finance had said in 1939, namely, that as far as it is humanly possible we shall pay for the war as it is fought. They came back greatly disillusioned. And when I hear this talk today of a lack of housing for those veterans; when I learn today of the continuing grievances with respect to various items of legislation affecting veterans; when I realize that there were families in the country who expanded their holdings very materially during the war as a consequence of all members of the family being at home while others in many instances were obliged to see every male member of the family depart, in my opinion there was not even a remote approach to the question of equality of sacrifice.
Referring also to this question, I should like to think, Mr. Speaker, that, when the Prime Minister spoke earlier in this debate

and asserted with respect to our manpower question that sentiment would not be a deciding factor, there would be no mobilization of manpower simply for the sake of mobilization, when he -took exception to the doctrinaire anti-conscriptionist, when he said that sentiment, race, and creed were not valid factors, when he said that the decision would be made purely on its merits, I agreed with him; but I had to conclude that he had not gone far enough. I thought there was an air of optimism about him and about what he said that to me at least could not be justified in the presence of the obvious facts. I would have appreciated hearing the Prime Minister saying something like this when he spoke that day. This is somewhat similar to what I should like to have heard him say: While not a pessimist or an alarmist, I am a realist. Communist imperialism constitutes a deadly threat to Canada. This country is a logical military target. Moreover, it is vulnerable to attack. Then he could have gone on and said: The effective defence of this great democracy involves several essentials: first, rapid and maximum production of required defence materials; second, the establishment of strong defences where such defences -are deemed necessary within our country; third, the immediate implementation of a program of compulsory military training, without exemption, in reserve forces of this country; fourth, there would be an immediate inventory, call it registration, if you like, of our human resources within this country; fifth, the adoption of a financial policy to obviate much of the need for oppressive debt and subsequent interest charges such as those which were built up during world war II; sixth, effective action to deal realistically with the cost of living problem; and seventh, and final, immediate action to prohibit the accumulation of huge profits resulting from war.
May I repeat, Mr. Speaker, had I heard the Prime Minister of Canada make an assertion of that kind I could have gone to my room and rested more comfortably than I did the night of the day on which I heard him speak.
Early in the last war, on September 12, 1939, to be exact, the acting minister of finance, Mr. Ilsley, speaking in -this house, said this, as reported at page 140 of Hansard -he was referring to the method of financing:
All this is not to say that a small and carefully regulated amount of credit expansion may not be desirable in the early stages of the war in order to assist the increase of production and employment. It must be small and carefully controlled because its effects which may not appear immediately are cumulative and otherwise might get out of hand.
The Address-Mr. Shaw
In the same speech he said:
However, as soon as the expansion of employment and production gets well under way and certainly before it approaches its limits, further expansion of the supply of money and credit must be stopped if the danger of progressive inflation is to be avoided. With an economy at full production and employment, the only result of expanding money and credit is to raise prices without increasing production.
It is with these fundamental considerations in mind that we have decided upon our policy of war finance. Because we believe it is the part of wisdom, we shall follow as far as may be practicable a pay-as-you-go policy.
Not only initially but throughout all the years of world war II the government of Canada persisted in its policy of heavy borrowings from the chartered banks. This was a significant feature of government financing. I am told-I have not confirmed the figure myself-that they borrowed over $3 billion from the chartered banks, and spent it throughout those years of the war and continued this quite contrarily to the position laid down by the minister of finance himself during the war. Not only that, Mr. Speaker, but they went out during the war loan campaigns and instead of telling the people, as they should have told them, that they were trying to meet and correct a condition of inflation resulting from too much money in circulation, they told the people that the only way you could have ships and shells and guns and tanks would be for them to subscribe their savings. But the very nature of the campaign resulted in hundreds of thousands of those people going to the chartered banks and borrowing newly created credits, thus adding millions upon millions, hundreds of millions more to an already highly inflated condition resulting from the government's persistent policy of borrowing from the chartered banks all during the war.
In 1939 the bonded debentures and treasury bills of Canada amounted to $3,385,722,462. Then ten years later, according to the Canada Year Book, it had jumped from that figure to $15,585,036,580. The actual interest-bearing debt was greater than that. What effect was had upon the interest? The annual interest charges in 1939 were $129,077,904. Now, in spite of a lowering of interest rates on borrowings by the government in the latter years of the war, the interest jumped from the figure I have given to $442,059,153.


Solon Earl Low: And no "sense".


Frederick Davis Shaw: And no "sense", as our leader has said. You can take that in its broadest sense. During the war, taking into account the deaths and our wounded, generally categorized as casualties, we had about 100,000.

The Address-Mr. Shaw We blew-into kingdom come, as some say- approximately $20 billion worth of production. Substantially as a consequence of the pursuance of that inflationary policy of borrowing heavily from the chartered banks, the boys came back and, with us, face a debt of $16 billion, as compared with the former three and a half billion, with interest charges of $442 million per year as compared with $129 million at the time the war broke out.
If there were any justification whatsoever for a situation of that kind I would be reasonable enough to accept it. But surely I cannot accept that, especially when we may never be advised by the government exactly what part of this debt was held by the chartered banks, nor have we been given a break-down to show what percentage of the bonds sold went back to the chartered banks through default on the part of purchasers.
In 1939 the late Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, then prime minister, said, as reported at page 23 of Hansard for September 8:
I come to profiteering. I believe I have already stated in this house that I know of nothing in the world more contemptible than that any man should seek to profit from the sacrifices which others are making . . . Unfortunately human nature has its weak and its bad sides, as well as its strong and good sides. Sometimes it is very difficult to cope effectively with the underworld and its methods. I care not who the individual may be, how respectable in his own eyes or in the eyes of others he may appear, or what position he may hold; if in this crisis he seeks to profiteer he belongs to the underworld and should be treated as one of those who menace all that is sacred in human relations.
When one comes to the definition of a word one finds a wide divergence of opinion. One person may think of profiteering quite differently from the way I would think of it. But when I stop to think of persons who entered the field of war production, there come to my mind some people who did not have a dollar to start with. Through a policy of cost-plus'- and as a member of the war expenditures committee of that time I am one who knows there was lots of "plus"-coupled with a rapidly accelerated rate of depreciation on buildings and machinery, men who had virtually nothing when the war started came out of the war as wealthy men. I well recall the time that the present Minister of Trade and Commerce, speaking in the house on September 12, 1939, referred to the five per cent ceiling on war contracts which had been put into effect under the defence purchases act. While I was not in the house at the time, having come here a few months later, I recall clearly having read in Hansard at that time where the minister spoke specifically about the fact that there was not one tender, as long as that five per cent proviso existed in the provisions for defence purchasing.

The proviso for limited profits was eliminated in, as I say, those, in many respects, devilish cost-plus contracts. I am not saying that a government can go into a period of war production now, when there are so many component parts which have to be imported, and a certain number of uncontrollable factors, and say at the commencement of a contract, "This is to be the end price." But, in my opinion, looking back as a member of the war expenditures committee I think there was a great deal of laxness that should never be allowed to prevail again. There should be far stricter supervision where cost-plus contracts are in operation.
I for one, so long as I am here, shall insist upon that. I think, too, we had better watch this question of rapidly accelerated depreciation, because a lot of people in this country are fed up with what occurred at that time.
Mr. Speaker, I believe I have spoken beyond my allotted time, but I do not think anyone else would desire particularly to start just before eleven o'clock. I am sure anyone following me would favour my going on for a few moments more.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Dealing with that section of our subamendment which refers to compulsory training in the reserve forces, I cannot but refer to a letter which came to me from one of my constituents only yesterday. I have received the telegrams from the various branches of the Canadian Legion and have made no decision purely on the basis of those telegrams. I participated in a good many meetings of one kind or another during the past several months, and I know what people have told me. I know what I have been told ' on the street. This man's letter reflects in an admirable fashion the feeling prevailing in the constituency of Red Deer. This man is not the type who is likely to go off the deep end. This man is a solid citizen, a good type of man from my home community. He is a substantial farmer and under date of February 8, he wrote:
I feel that all good men and true who have the honour and security of this' great dominion of Canada at heart can do no less than endorse the Canadian Legion's "Operation Preparedness."
Therefore, sir, I hope you will not cease to press upon the government at every opportunity the need for action upon the terms laid down therein and particularly, as a first step, the urgent need for national registration and compulsory training in the reserve forces.
The taxpayer knows the price will be high, but not so high as the cost of unpreparedness. I know that I speak for a great number of your constituents in this matter and while not desirous in any way to emulate the system of our good neighbours to the south, I feel nothing but disgust for the soothing reassurances emanating from the government. Time is short and this is not the time for political expediency.

The Address-Mr. Shaw


Mr. Speaker:: I think at a previous session
the house came to the conclusion that an hon. member should not read a letter unless he was prepared to table it.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I was aware of that fact and
I would not have considered reading the letter had I not been prepared to table it. It can go into the record. It comes from Innisfail and is signed by G. Hamond Gates. As I say, it is available for the record.


Mr. Cole (Verdun-La Salle):: Send us a copy of the letter.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I was reading a copy because with all due respect it was a little easier to read my own writing than what was in the letter. In order to quote this gentleman correctly I took a little time to rewrite his letter, but the original letter is here.
In conclusion, may I say that all of us hope and trust that there will be no third world war, but all of us know that possibly for the next quarter of a century we shall have to feel somewhat as though we are at war. Earlier in my remarks I said that I like to be branded as a realist. Should the worst come to pass and this country be attacked I want the people to know which end of the gun goes to the shoulder so that they will not blow out their own brains in the process of trying to shoot the enemy. Secondly, such training would avoid panic, which is one of the things
that could be really bad. It would develop confidence in our people. Speaking personally, I think it would be good for one's physique-not that I have much of a physique even though I spent more than a year in that type of training.


Mr. Poulioi:: Mr. Speaker, thanks to the graciousness of the hon. member for Maple Creek (Mr. Studer), I should like to move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



PRIVILEGE


Mr. Roberi Fair (Battle River):: Mr
Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. It has been brought to my attention that on page 10 of the Montreal Daily Star of February 12, someone has taken my name in vain. Under the heading "Extract from Hansard", it reads:
Remarks of Robert Fair, Social Credit member for Battle River, in. the throne speech debate:
Then the article continues and quotes someone else's remarks. I am not questioning the accuracy of the remarks, but they do not belong to me so I want to have that corrected.
On motion of Mr. Fournier (Hull) the house adjourned at 10.55 p.m.

Wednesday, February 14, 1951